C  nap  m  ck  K 


T«xc4s  for  tkc -tiftics    ovvlh?o.ht    ^<xf4:tsm 


9466-t 


/ 


%. 


J 


jfiM  24  1946    ^ 


/ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witii  funding  from 

Princeton  Tlieological  Seminary  Library 


littp://www.arGliive.org/details/tractsfortimesonOOcliap 


\a  o   ^  c>  '■? 
TRACTS  FOE  THE  Tlllfe.  ^  ^  ^ 


INFANT    BAPTISM;      ,^. 


rO    WHICH     IS   ADDBD 


QUESTIONS  ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 


BY  REV.  JAMES  L.  CHAPMAN, 

A    MINISTER   OF   TUB   METHODIST  EPISCOPAI.  CHURCH,  SOUTH,  M£MFai8  CONPBRENCS. 


Their  ehildreu,  also,  shall  be  as  aforetime.'' — Jeremiah. 


LOUISVILLE,  KY. 

SOLD   BY   THE   SOUTHERN   METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN. 

E.  STEVKNSON,  ASS'T    AGENT. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  18";2,  hy 

JAMES  L.  CHAPMAN, 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  "Western  District 

of  Tennessee. 


Stereotyped  and  Printed  by 

MORTON  Sc  GlUSWor.Il, 

Lottiiville,  Kij. 


01 
CONTENTS 


TRACT  I. 
The  right  to  initiate  Infants   into   the  Church,  by  Baptism, 
nnder  the  grand  provisions  of  the  Abrahamic  Covenant,  is  clearly 
expressed  by  various  forms  of  speech,  in  the  Scripture,       -  9 

TRACT  II. 
Neither  woman  nor  child  is  expressly  mentioned  in  the  commis- 
sion given  to  the  Apostles  by  the  Saviour.  The  words  he  and 
nations,  as  therein  used,  must  be  generically  expounded.  The 
right  of  infants  to  discipleship  in  the  Church,  by  Baptism,  ampli- 
fied by  sundry  passages  of  Scripture, 37 

TRACT  III. 
The  right  to  baptize  Infants  is  as  self-evident  as  the  provision 
of  an  unrepealed  law,  -        - 50 

TRACT  IV. 
Infant  Baptism  proved  by  circumcision.    The  views  and  practice 
of  the  Fathers  being  respected, 62 

TRACT  V. 
The  history  of  the  Christian  state  of  the  Church  proves  that 


IV  CONTENTS. 

Infant  Baptism  has  been  practiced  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles 
until  now,    ----...  -72 

TRACT  VI. 
Infant  Baptism  proved  by  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  Wal- 
denses, 112 

TRACT  VII. 
Questions  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism,        ....      127 


PREFACE. 


In  presenting  to  the  public  this  work,  styled 
"  TuACTS  FOR  THE  TiMES,"  we  deem  it  proper 
to  make  known  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  appears,  and  the  design  it  is  intended  to 
accomplish.  This  will  constitute  the  whole 
of  the  preface. 

Our  friends,  knowing  that  we  have  carefully 
examined  the  subject  of  Infant  Baptism,  not 
only  in  the  light  of  inspiration  but  that  ot 
history,  have  again  and  again  solicited  us  to 
publish  the  result  of  our  labors  in  a  cheap 
form,  exactly  suited  to  the  majority  in  style 
and  arrangement.  With  this  we  should  have 
long  since  complied,  provided  we  could  have 
obtained  the  consent  of  our  own  mind  to 
publish  any  thing  on  the  Scriptural  candidate 
for,   apart    from   the   mode  of,  baptism.      The 


VI  PREFACE. 

circumstance,  it  is  said,  "  may  alter  the  case" — 
hence  tlie  cause  of  yielding  to  the  solicitations 
of  those  whose  judgments  we  highly  respect.* 
They  desire  to  have  the  evidence  we  have 
collected  and  arranged  on  infant  baptism,  that 
they  may  carry  it  to  the  homes  of  truth- 
seekers,  and  place  it  before  the  onward  march 
of  error.  These  considerations,  without 
another  word,  will  account  for  the  circum- 
stances under  which  this  work  appears. 

And  now  we  come  to  consider  the  design  it 
is  intended  to  accomplish.  The  Anti-Pedo- 
baptist,  of  course,  honestly  opposes  infant 
baptism ;  hence  we  wish  to  show  him  that  his 
opposition  is  hadly  founded,  and  that  our 
creed,  in  this  particular,  meets  with  the  approval 
of  the  Scripture,  and  the  true  history  of  the 
Church — that  it  has  been  known  to  successive 


*  Since  we  completed  the  preface  we  wrote  a  tract  on  the 
mode  of  baptism,  which  the  reader  will  find  at  the  close  of  oitr 
labors  on  iiifiint  baptism.  It  will  be  found,  doubtless,  in  a  fit 
place,  embodying  very  needful  and  comprehensive  information  on 
the  force  and  application  of  the  word  baptize. 


PREFACE.  VU 

ages,  beginning  with  the  days  of  Moses,  and 
ending  with  our  time,  without  a  breach  in  any 
link  of  this  long  chain  of  evidence.  This, 
without  circumlocution,  is  the  design  it  is 
intended  to  accomplish. 

But  here  it  may  be  asked,  "will  it  accomplish 
this  ?"  We  reply,  relying  on  the  accumulated 
force  of  the  evidence,  and  the  general  tendency 
to  submit,  so  far  as  faith  is  concerned,  to  truth, 
it  ouglit ;  and  so  saying  we  close  the  preface. 

The  Author. 

Memjyhis,  June  24,  1852. 


TRACTS  FOR  THE  Tl 


fen  ^^    O    r±.  ^\, 


ME 


TKACT  I. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 


THE  RIGHT  TO  INITIATE  INFANTS  INTO  THE  CHURCH  BV  BAPTISM, 
UNDER  THE  GRAND  PROVISIONS  OF  THE  ABRAHAMIC  COVENANT, 
IS  CLEARLY  EXPRESSED  BY  VARIOUS  FORMS  OF  SPEECH,  IN  THE 
SCRIPTURE. 

Some  Anti-Pedobaptists,  in  order  to  break  the  force 
of  an  argument  that  looks  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
for  authority  to  baptize  infants,  tell  us  "  that  God 
made  two  covenants  with  Abraham,"  and  strangely 
argue  from  the  doctrine  of  repeal  to  the  doctrine  of 
"  a  new  covenant ;"  but  the  following  passages  will 
place  the  subject  in  its  true  light,  and  clearly  and 
fully  show  that  the  language  of  the  heading  is  the 
language  of  truth.  In  Genesis  xvii,  4,  we  read : 
"Behold,  my  covenant  is  with  thee."  In  the  7th 
verse  we  read :  "  And  I  will  establish  my  covenant 
between  me  and  thee."     In  the  9th  verse  we  read  : 


12  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

advocacy,  in  connection  with  the  perpetuity  of  the 
Church  under  it. 

We  shall  here  name,  however,  for  the  advantage 
of  the  ordinary  mind,  the  points  that  the  preceding 
passages  and  considerations  make  undeniable.  The 
first  is,  that  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  does  greatly  err  in 
stating  that  God  made  "two  covenants"  with  Abra- 
ham, for  every  feature  of  the  proof  before  us  forbids 
the  idea.  The  second  is,  that  both  states  of  the 
Church  are  identified  under  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant ;  for  St.  Paul,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring  to 
the  text  quoted  from  him  above,  informs  us  that 
Christians  are  heirs  according  to  the  promise  made 
in  covenant  with  Abraham.  And  the  third  is,  that 
Paul  could  not  say,  speaking  of  disciples  under  Christ, 
ye  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the 
promise,  if  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  repealed  or 
abrogated  on  the  introduction  of  Christianity.  How 
plain  our  position  becomes  ! 

Fuller,  a  distinguished  Baptist,  vol,  5,  p.  115, 
speaks  thus  of  the  promise  made  in  covenant  with 
Abraham :  "  This  promise  has  been  fulfilling  ever 
since.  All  the  true  blessedness  which  the  world  is 
now,  or  shall  hereafter  be  possessed  of,  is  owing  to 
Abraham  and  his  posterity.     Through  them  we  have 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  13 

a  Bible,  a  Saviour,  and  a  gospel.  They  are  the  stock 
on  which  the  Christian  Church  is  grafted."  He  con- 
tinues thus,  in  p.  153  :  "  By  the  exposition  given  of 
this  promise  in  the  New  Testament,  Romans,  iv,  16, 
17,  we  are  directed  to  understand  it,  not  only  of  those 
who  sprang  from  Abraham's  body,  though  these  were 
many  nations ;  but  also  of  all  that  should  be  of  the 
faith  of  Abraham.  It  went  to  make  him  the  father 
of  the  Church  of  God  in  all  future  ages,  or,  as  the 
apostle  calls  him,  "the heir  of  the  world."  If  words 
have  a  definite  meaning,  Fuller,  though  a  decided 
Anti-Pedobaptist,  is  not  only  with  us  respecting  one 
covenant  with  Abraham,  but  with  us,  in  the  highest 
sense,  respecting  its  perpetuity — a  thing  denied  by 
all  the  Anti-Pedobaptists  with  whom  we  have  had  any 
controversy. 

In  this  connection  we  invite  the  attention  of  the 
reader  to  a  few  considerations  on  circumcision,  the 
sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham, 
and  its  true  relation,  as  we  understand  it,  to  baptism. 
It  was  the  visible  evidence  of  membership  in  the 
Jewish  state  of  the  church.  It  was  the  door  by 
which  individuals  were  introduced  into  the  fellowship 
of  this  state  of  the  chui'ch.  It  distinguished  them 
from  those  who  were  not  in  covenant  with  God.     It 


14  TRACTS    FOR    THZ   TIMES. 

was  a  significant  ordinance,  which  looked  to  the  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart ;  hence  the  wicked  are  called 
the  uneii'cumcised  in  heart.  Baptism  was,  according  to 
our  judgment,  evidently  substituted  for  circumcision 
on  the  general  introduction  of  Christianity  by  the 
apostles,  and  made  the  established  sign  and  seal  of 
the  covenant  for  all  time.  In  other  words,  to  keep 
the  minds  of  all  from  controversy  over  the  word 
substituted,  we  remark  that  baptism  answers  the  same 
purpose  to  the  Christian  state  of  the  church,  that 
circumcision  did  to  the  Jewish  state  of  the  church. 
Baptism,  therefore,  is  the  visible  e\idence  of  member- 
ship in  the  Christian  state  of  the  church.  It  is  the 
door  by  which  all  now  enter  into  the  fellowship  pre- 
scribed. It  distinguishes  those  who  are  in  covenant 
relation  to  God  from  those  who  are  not.  It  is  most 
unquestionably  a  significant  ordinance,  pointing  to  the 
purification  of  the  heart  by  the  Spirit,  and  not  a  com- 
memorative one,  looking  to  tlie  burial  and  resun-ection 
of  Christ ;  and  on  this  account  believers  are  repre- 
sented as  being  "  circumcised  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands."  The  circumcision  of  the  heart 
was  the  main  tiling  signified  in  the  ordinance  of 
circumcision  to  a  child,  and  the  purification  or  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart  by  the  Spirit  is  the  main  thing 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  15 

signified  in  baptism  to  the  infant.  In  short  there  was 
an  outward  circumcision,  and  there  was  an  inward 
circumcision — just  as  we  now  have  in  the  gradual 
development  of  things,  an  outward  baptism,  and  an 
inward  baptism. 

Lightfoot  represents  the  Jews  as  looking  on  circum- 
cision in  the  light  of  a  sign  and  seal — that  when  the 
administrator  was  ready  to  act,  he  was  instructed  to 
saj  :  "  Blessed  be  he  who  hath  sanctified  you,  beloved 
from  the  womb,  and  hath  placed  the  sign  in  your 
flesh,  and  hath  sealed  our  sons  with  the  seal  of  his 
holy  covenant."     See  Lightfoot  on  Matt,  xxviii,  19. 

"  The  Christian  Fathers,"  says  Dr.  Pond,  "  were 
accustomed  to  represent  baptism  as  a  seal.  Hermas, 
speaking  of  the  '  seal  of  the  Son  of  God,'  says,  '  but 
that  seal  is  water.' "     Page  117. 

Now,  as  the  perpetuity  of  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham — the  character  and  main  design  of  circum- 
cision and  its  true  relation  to  baptism — the  office  and 
the  main  design  of  baptism,  are  now  before  us, 
clearly  defined,  and  based  on  Inspiration,  we  tliink 
we  may  confidently  say,  that  infants  have  as  high 
claims  on  the  initiatory  rite  of  the  church  as  adults. 
In  plain  terms,  if  infants  had  a  right  to  discipleship 
or  membership  in  the  Jewish  state  of  the  church,  and 


16  TRACTS   FOR    THE   TIMES. 

were  made  disciples  or  members  by  circumcision, 
under  the  Abrahamic  covenant — are  not  infants  now, 
under  the  same  covenant,  its  perpetuity  being  estab- 
lished, entitled  to  discipleship  or  membership  in  the 
Christian  state  of  the  church  by  baptism  ?  Most 
assuredly. 

There  are  Anti-Pedobaptists,  however,  that  not' 
only  honestly  chng  to  the  doctrine  of  "  two  covenants  " 
made  with  Abraham,  but  regard  infant  baptism 
as  being  beyond  the  slightest  sanction  of  either. 
Genesis  is  read  and  re-read,  in  order  to  find  "  two 
covenants  " — Whence  the  necessity  of  a  mighty  showing 
on  these  points,  confirmatory  of  one  covenant,  recog- 
nizing the  right  of  infant  membership. 

In  reading  the  Book  of  Genesis  we  find  covenant 
language  addressed  to  Abraham  in  all  the  following 
places  :  xii,  1,  2 — also  xiii,  14,  15 — also  xv,  1,  2,  3, 
4 — and  also  xvii,  18,  19.  Now,  if  covenant  language 
be  followed  out  into  divisions  in  these  instances,  many 
covenants  will  appear  instead  of  one. 

To  the  end  of  showing  the  force  and  propriety  of 
this  remark,  we  shall  here  give  some  particular  or 
definite  facts  illustrative  of  its  truthfulness.  God 
made  a  promise  to  Abraham  of  a  numerous  posterity, 
at  least  seven  different  times.     See  Genesis  xii.  1^ ; 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  17 

also  xiii,  16  ;  also  xv,  6 ;  also  xvii,  2 ;  also  xviii,  18  ; 
also  xxi,  12,  and  also  xxii,  17.  Nor  is  this  all,  since 
we  find  that  God  promised  the  land  of  Canaan  to 
Abraham,  at  least  four  different  times.  See  Genesis 
xii,  7  ;  also  xiii,  15  ;  also  xv,  18  ;  also  xvii,  8.  And 
in  addition  to  all  this  we  find  that  God  promised 
to  Abraham,  at  least  three  different  times,  to  bless 
the  nations  and  families  of  the  earth  through  him. 
See  Genesis  xii,  3  ;  also  xviii,  18,  and  also  xxii,  18. 
What  a  number  of  covenants  we  would  have  without 
a  discriminating  mode  of  interpretation !  In  short, 
the  grand  panorama  of  promises  made  to  Abraham, 
at  various  periods  and  places,  must  be  viewed  as 
looking  to,  and  deriving  all  their  force  from  one  covC' 
nant,  leaving  us  to  feel  the  startling  proclamation  of 
Peter,  "Ye  are  the  children  of  the  covenant  [not 
covenants]  which  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying 
unto  Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Well  does  Dr.  Rice  say  ; 
"  The  Bible  speaks  of  but  one  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham/' This  is  the  language  of  the  Pedobaptist  world. 
We  shall  now  notice  the  principal  passages  on 
wliicli  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  relies  to  oppose  what  is 
above  written  on  the  one  covenant  with  Abraham. 
In  the  first  place,  he  brings  forth  the   testimony  of 

0 


18  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

Jeremiah,  xxxi,  31,  32  :  '•  Behold,  the  days  come, 
saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with 
the  house  of  Israel,  and  with  the  house  of  Judah ; 
not  according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their 
fathers,  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  "  Now,  does 
not  this,"  says  he,  "  show  that  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham  was  to  be  repealed  ?"  We  simply 
answer,  that  there  is  not  one  word  about  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  in  the  whole  quotation.  The 
covenant  here  misapplied  was  made  in  the  day  that 
God  brought  Israel  up  out  of  Egypt,  and  has  no 
application  to  the  birth  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
which  had  taken  place  long,  long  before  Jeremiah 
recorded  his  prophecy,  and  long  before  Israel  departed 
from  Egypt.  We  hope  the  Anti-Pedobaptists  will 
remember  this,  and  ever  keep  from  confounding 
things  that  do  not  even  agree  as  to  time.  The 
Abrahamic  covenant  was  made  with  himself,  but  the 
covenant  of  which  Jeremiah  spoke  was  made  with 
Israel  when  going  forth  from  the  land  of  Egypt.  The 
latter,  of  course,  was  abolished,  but  the  former,  the 
Abrahamic,  abideth,  and  must  abide  for  ever.  The 
covenant  abolished  was  only  a  temporary  amphfication 
of  the  one  made  with  Abraham,  but  the  new  covenant 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  19 

is  with  us — standing  as  an  abiding  amplification  of 
the  provisions  of  the  Abrahamic. 

In  the  second  place  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  calls 
our  attention  to  the  testimony  of  Paul  in  Romans 
ix,  4,  -which  reads  :  "  Who  are  Israehtes  ;  to  whom 
pertained  the  adoption,  and  the  glory,  and  the  cove- 
nants ?"  Well,  what  of  this  ?  Does  the  apostle 
say  that  both  these  covenants  were  made  with  Abra- 
ham ?  By  no  means  !  He  here  speaks  of  the  house 
of  Israel,  not  of  Abraham  in  the  abstract.  Now,  let 
us  take  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  add  to 
it  the  one  Jeremiah  says  was  made  with  Israel  when 
going  forth  from  Egypt,  and  then  we  shall  have  two — 
enough  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  refer- 
ring them  to  Israel,  and  to  satisfy  our  own  minds  on 
the  subject.  In  a  general  sense  both  belonged  to 
Israel,  but  in  a  special  sense  one  of  them  was  made 
with  Abraham  and  the  other  with  liis  posterity  in 
their  departure  from  Egypt.  An  appeal,  therefore, 
to  this  quarter  cannot  help  the  cause  of  the  Anti- 
Pedobaptist — nor  disturb,  in  the  most  remote  way, 
any  thing  before  us  on  the  one  covenant  with 
Abraham. 

In  the  third  and  last  place,  the  Anti-Pedobaptist 
appeals  to  Paul,  who  says,     Gal.  iv,  23 — 26    "  But 


w 


20  TRACTS    FOR   THE    TIMES. 

he  -^ho  was  the  bond-woman,  was  born  after  the  flesh ; 
but  he  of  the  free-Avoman  was  by  promise.  Which 
things  are  an  allegory ;  for  these  are  the  two  cove- 
nants ;  the  one  from  the  mount  Sinai  which  gendereth 
to  bondage,  which  is  Agar.  For  this  Agar  is  mount 
Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answereth  to  Jerusalem  which 
now  is,  and  is  in  bondage  with  her  children.  But 
Jerusalem  which  is  above  is  free,  which  is  the  mother 
of  us  all."  Here  we  ask  the  Anti-Pedobaptist,  does 
Paul  say  that  both  these  covenants  were  made  with 
Abraham  ?  He  does  not,  but  plainly  declares  that 
one  of  them  is  from  Sinai,  and  that  the  other  is 
the  Abrahamic.  But  in  order  to  understand  the 
apostle,  and  the  particular  application  of  his  thoughts, 
we  must  keep  in  view  the  following  facts — that  the 
Sinaic  covenant,  which  was  made  with  the  Jews 
through  Moses,  was  only  intended  to  be  a  temporary 
addition  to  the  Abrahamic — that  the  new  covenant 
of  which  Jeremiah  spoke,  which  was  made  with  the 
believing  Jews  through  Christ,  who  placed  it  in  con- 
tradistinction to  the  Sinaic,  was  intended  to  be  a 
lasting  addition  to  the  one  made  with  Abraham — that 
the  Sinaic  covenant  was  made  430  years  after  the 
Abrahamic,  which  was  made  1811  years  before  its 
promised  Messiah  came ;  and  that   the   law    in    the 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  21 

Sinaic  covenant  did  not,  could  not,  to  use  the  language 
of  Paul,  "  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise 
of  none  efiect ;"  that  is,  the  promise  in  covenant  with 
Abraham.  We  are  now  ready  to  explain  the  meaning 
of  the  apostle.  He  makes  Agar  and  her  child  repre- 
sent, in  the  allegory,  the  Sinaic  covenant  and  the  Jews 
who  sought  for  justification  through  it.  Agar,  par- 
ticularly speaking,  stands  out  in  the  allegory  as  the 
representative  of  the  Sinaic  covenant,  and  her  child 
as  the  representative  of  the  Christ-rejecting  Jews 
under  it.  This  portion  of  our  subject  being  fairly 
stated,  we  shall  now  draw  our  inference,  which  is, 
that  as  Agar  and  Ishmael  were  cut  oflf  from  the  family 
of  Abraham,  so  were  the  Christ-rejecting  Jews  and 
the  Sinaic  covenant  cut  oflf  from  the  household  of 
God.  This  is  how  the  covenant  from  Sinai  gendered 
to  bondage,  and  answered  to  the  bondage  in  which 
Jerusalem  was  found  with  her  children  when  the 
apostle  wrote.  In  plain  terms,  as  Agar  and  Ishmael 
were  separated  from  the  family  of  Abraham,  not  being 
according  to  promise,  and  sent  forth  as  wanderers  into 
the  world  ;  so  were  the  unbelieving  Jews  separated 
from  the  household  of  faith,  not  being  heirs  according 
to  the  promise  in  covenant  with  Abraham,  and  sent 
forth  to  roam  in  strange  lands.    Is  not  every  wander- 


22 


TllACTS   FOR   THE   TIMES. 


iug  Jew  a  self-evident  proof  of  this  ?  The  next  point 
in  order  is,  that  the  apostle  makes  Sarah  and  her  child 
represent,  in  the  allegory,  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
and  the  believing  Jews  who  found  justification  through 
its  promised  Messiah.  Sarah,  definitely  speaking,  is 
represented  in  the  allegory  as  the  representative  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  her  child  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Christ-receiving  Jews  under  it.  Now, 
as  this  portion  of  the  subject  is  also  fairly  stated,  we 
shall  here  draw  the  inference,  which  is,  that  as  Sarah 
and  Isaac  were  retained  in  the  family  of  Abraham, 
so  were  the  believing  Jews  and  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant retained  in  the  household  of  God.  This  is  how 
the  believing  ones  were  of  Jerusalem  above,  (the 
spirituality  of  Christ's  Kingdom,)  which  was  free,  the 
mother  of  them  all.  In  short,  as  Sarah  and  Isaac 
were  retained  in  the  family  of  Abraham  to  enjoy  its 
blessings,  being  according  to  promise,  so  were  the 
beheving  Jews  retained  in  the  household  of  God,  being 
heirs  according  to  the  promise  made  in  covenant  with 
Abraham.  Is  not  every  Christian,  who  is  of  the  seed 
of  Abraham  by  faith,  a  heaven-standing  proof  of  the 
correctness  of  this  exposition  !  The  reader  must  per 
ceive,  from  what  is  here  stated,  that  in  the  rejection 
of  the  unbeheving  Jews  their  infant  ofTiipring  were 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  23 

subjected  to  bondage,  and  now  so  stand  under  the 
Sinaic  covenant ;  and  moreover,  that  the  infant  off- 
spring of  the  believing  Jews  were  then  retained  to 
represent  the  right  of  Gentile  children  to  church 
fellowship,  and  now  so  stand  under  the  Abrahamic 
covenant.  Infant  discipleship,  and  the  identity  of 
both  states  of  the  church,  at  this  point  become  truly 
impressive.  In  further  illustration  of  this  we  remark, 
that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  is  still  with  us, 
which  covenant  found  a  representative  in  Sarah,  and 
a  subject  in  the  child  Isaac — how  then  reject  infant 
membership  under  such  circumstances,  and  call  it  an 
" uncovenanted  thing?"  Now,  in  view  of  all  the 
foregoing  considerations,  may  we  not  here  truly  say, 
applying  the  thought  to  households,  "  We,  brethren, 
as  Isaac  was,  [in  the  covenant  allegorized,]  are  the 
children  of  promise  ?" 

Having  disposed  of  the  principal  passages  on  which 
the  Anti-Pedobaptist  relies  to  oppose  our  views 
respecting  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  we  shall  now 
attend  to  what  he  will  have  to  say  against  our  views 
and  conclusions  respecting  the  perpetuity  of  the 
church  in  two  states.  Daniel,  without  doubt,  will  be 
quoted,  who  said,  (ii,44,)  "  And  in  the  days  of  thfte 
Kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  Kingdom." 


24  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

From  this  he  will  preach  that  the  God  of  heaven 
promised  to  set  up,  and  did  set  up,  by  John  and  the 
apostles,  a  new  kingdom — a  kingdom  having  new  laws 
and  subjects  different  "  from  those  of  the  Jewish 
commonwealth."  To  this  we  reply,  by  way  of  anti- 
cipation, that  Daniel  did  not  say  that  the  God  of 
heaven  was  to  introduce  a  new  kingdom,  having 
new  laws,  and  subjects  different  to  the  Jewish  state  of 
the  church,  but  only  prophesied  that  a  kingdom  would 
be  set  up,  that  is,  a  kingdom  in  being  was  to  be  raised 
up  out  of  weakness,  strengthened  and  confirmed.  In 
the  work  of  raising,  strengthening  and  confirming, 
without  equivocation,  we  read  the  perpetuity  of  the 
church,  showing  the  same  membership,  adults  and 
infants.  To  illustrate  this  thought  we  observe,  let  a 
promise  be  made  to  raise  a  woman  and  her  children 
from  poverty  to  wealth,  and  carry  into  effect  the 
promise,  and  the  following  will  be  the  result — their, 
condition  or  state  wUl  be  found  altered,  but  the  law 
of  their  existence  the  same.  In  like  manner  we  must 
look  on  the  promise  by  Daniel.  It  gives  us  to  know 
that  when  the  God  of  heaven  raised  up  his  church 
with  her  children  from  the  poverty  of  intellectual 
weakness,  and  made  them  rich  by  the  power  of  his 
grace,  the  change  was  in  their  condition  or  state,  and 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  25 

lot  in  the  character  of  their  being.  The  perpetuity, 
therefore,  of  the  church  is  plainly  sustained  by  Daniel. 
The  Anti-Pedobaptist,  in  the  next  place,  in  opposi- 
tion to  our  position  respecting  the  perpetuity  of  the 
church,  will  quote  John  the  Baptist,  Matt,  iii,  2,  who 
says :  "  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand."  He  will  present  this  to  the  world  as  proving 
that  God  did  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  which  John 
principally  refers,  set  up  a  kingdom  or  church  "  entirely 
distinct  from  the  Jewish  commonwealth."  To  this 
we  reply  in  advance,  that  John  is  to  be  understood  as 
teaching  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  state, 
which  was  to  be  ushered  into  being  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  and  to  assume  a  glorious  form,  standing  as 
intimately  connected  with  the  Jewish  church  state  as 
a  flower  to  its  stem,  or  a  branch  to  the  vine.  This  is 
the  true  sense  of  John.  The  Anti-Pedobaptist  will 
next  bring  forward  the  statement  of  the  Saviour, 
Matt,  xi,  12,  which  reads  thus:  "  And  from  the  days 
of  John  the  Baptist  until  now,  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
sufFereth  violence,  and  the  violent  take  it  by  force." 
This  he  will  explain  in  a  preparatory  sense,  that  is, 
the  materials  for  the  organization  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost  began  to  be  prepared  with  the  ministry  of 
John,  and   that  a  "  church  was  set  up  on  that  day 


26  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

in  contradistinction  to  the  Jewish  or  legal,"  solely 
composed  of  adults,  and  opposed  to  the  reception  of 
infants.  To  this  also  we  reply  in  advance,  stating,  that, 
whether  the  Saviour  speaks  in  a  preparatory  sense, 
or  of  a  particular  feature  in  the  Jewish  church  state, 
the  doctrine  of  perpetuity  not  only  remains  undis- 
turbed by  either,  but  finds  an  approving  response  in 
his  language  in  another  place,  speaking  of  children : 
'•  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  The  kingdom 
of  God,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Saviour,  that 
suffered  violence  from  the  days  of  John,  was  then 
partly  composed  of  children :  and  on  this  account 
there  must  be  a  cutting  off  law  named  and  presented, 
which  was  introduced  between  the  day  of  Pentecost 
and  the  time  the  Saviour  said,  "  For  of  such  [children] 
is  the  kingdom  of  God,"  or  the  perpetuity  of  the 
church  will  ever  stand,  before  the  eye  of  reason, 
without  a  doubt  on  its  character. 

But  as  no  such  law  can  be  named,  children,  of 
course,  were  in  favor  with  the  church  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  so  have  remained  since.  This  gives 
us  a  correct  understanding  of  the  texts  just  considered, 
and  a  proper  exposition  of  the  principle  they  sanction. 
We  shall  now  present  what  the  Saviour  said  at  an 
advanced  period  of  his  ministry  on  this  subject.     In 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  27 

reference  to  the  Jewish  church  state  he  observed : 
"  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and 
given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof." 
Matthew  xxi,  43.  The  idea  of  a  new  church  or 
kingdom  in  contradistinction  to  the  Jewish,  alone 
composed  of  adults,  is  at  variance  with  the  doctrine 
here  set  forth  bj  the  Saviour.  This  is  made  self- 
evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  Saviour  declared  the 
kingdom  of  God,  of  which  children  made  a  part,  was 
to  be  taken  from  the  Jews,  and  given  or  transferred 
to  the  Gentiles,  but  did  not,  in  the  most  indirect 
manner,  intimate  that  a  kingdom  or  church  was  to  be 
Bet  up  in  contradistinction  to  the  Jewish,  solely  com- 
posed of  adults.  This  is  but  an  Anti-Pedobaptist 
fancy.  But  with  respect  to  the  kingdom  of  God  we 
remark,  that  the  state  of  the  church,  whether  Jewish 
or  Christian,  is  generally  signified.  In  one  passage 
the  sense  is  preparatory  ;  that  is,  setting  forth  a 
people  preparing  to  pass  out  of  the  Jewish  church 
state  into  that  of  the  Christian.  In  another  we  find 
the  sense  looking  to  the  future  ;  that  is,  to  the  devel- 
opment of  Christianity  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  And 
in  another  we  find  the  sense  directly  present  and 
future ;  that  is,  expressing  the  Jewish  church  state, 
and  the  transfer  of  all  its  good  to  the  Gentiles.     All 


28  TRACTS   FOR  THE   TIMES. 

these  considerations  finely  accord  with  the  perpetuity 
of  the  church,  and  compel  us  to  feel  that  the  Jewish 
state  of  the  church  became  the  good  olive-tree,  giving 
living  vitality  to  every  branch  of  the  Christian  church 
state. 

In  this  connection  we  shall  present  some  confir- 
matory passages  of  Scripture,  which  will  not  only 
embrace  the  grounds  occupied  in  this  chapter,  but 
place  its  contents  beyond  the  reach  of  contradiction. 
Jeremiah,  xxx,  20,  speaks  thus :  "  Their  children  also 
shall  be  as  aforetime."  Now,  if  this  apply  to  the 
Christian  church  state,  comment  is  needless ;  for  the 
prophet  tells  us  that  they  must  be  as  aforetime  ;  that 
is,  as  children  were  made  disciples  or  members  of  the 
Jewish  church  state  by  circumcision,  so  must  they  be 
made  disciples  or  members  of  the  Christian  church 
state  by  baptism.  Oppose  this,  and  you  oppose  the 
prophet,  who  says — "  children  shall  be  as  aforetime." 
Amos,  ix,  11,  says :  "  In  that  day  will  I  raise  the 
tabernacle  of  David  that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the 
breaches  thereof;  and  I  will  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I 
will  build  it  as  in  days  of  old."  Noav,  if  this  apply 
to  the  Christian  state  of  the  church,  then  are  infants 
a  portion  of  its  members ;  for  if  they  were  of  the 
tabernacle  in  days  of  old,  they  now  arc  of  it — seeing 


IXFANT     BAPTISM.  29 

according  to  the  proclamation  of  Amos,  that  it  was  to 
be  built  as  in  ancient  times ;    that  is,   composed  of 
materials  similar  to  what  it  embraced  in  days  of  old. 
Oppose  this,  and  you  are  at  issue  with  this  statement: 
"  I  will  build  it  [the  tabernacle  or  house  of  God]  as 
in  the  days  of  old."     James  (Acts  xv,  14,  15,  16) 
speaks  as  follows  ;    "  Simeon  had  declared  how  God 
at  the  first  did  visit  the  Gentiles,  to  take  out  of  them 
a  people  for  his  name.     And  to  thie  agree  the  words 
of  the  prophets  ;    as  it  is  written  :  After  this  I  will 
return,  and  I  will  build  again  the  tabernacle  of  David 
which  is  fallen  down ;  and  I  will  build  again  the  ruins 
thereof,  and  will  set  it  up."     James,  without  doubt, 
applies  the  words  of  Amos  to  the  Christian  church 
state,  and  gives  us  to  understand,  by  a  just  inference, 
that  if  infants  belonged  to  the  tabernacle  of  David, 
and  had  a  right  to  be  there,  infants  belonged  to  it  as 
it  now  stands,  and  have  a  right  to  be  there.     Let  him 
that  can,  legislate  infants  out  of  the  church  in  the 
face   of    this    testimony !      Paul,   Ephesians   ii,   20, 
speaks  thus  ;    "  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being 
the  chief  corner  stone."     The  idea  of  a  contradis- 
tinguishing church,  as  spoken  of  by  Anti-Pedobaptist?, 
finds  no  countenance  here.     No,  no  !     Here  we  have 


30  TRACTS    FOR    THE   TIMES. 

identity  and  perpetuity  preached  by  the  Spirit !  Here 
we  have  the  leading  object  of  the  promise  in  covenant 
with  Abraham  presented  as  the  foundation  of  prophets 
and  apostles  !  And  here  we  have  a  strong  presenta- 
tion of  infant  discipleship  by  baptism  ;  for  if  the 
foundation  of  the  prophets  was  the  foundation  of  infant 
discipleship  by  circumcision,  of  course  the  foundation 
of  the  apostles  must  be  the  foundation  of  infant  dis- 
cipleship by  baptism — the  initiatory  ordinance  of  the 
people  of  God  now,  answering  to  the  ordinance  of 
circumcision  in  ancient  times.  How  inexpressively 
evident  our  position  becomes. 

We  shall  now  hear  the  testimony  of  Matthew, 
which  runs  thus :  "At  the  same  time  came  the  dis- 
ciples to  Jesus,  saying,  who  is  the  greatest  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ?  And  Jesus  called  a  little  child 
unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the  midst  of  them,"  &c. 
Chapter  xviii,  1,  2. 

Now,  if  we  would  ask,  who  is  the  greatest  man  in 
Tennessee,  would  any  person  be  at  liberty  to  answer, 
the  Hon.  H.  Clay  is  ?  We  do  not  ask,  who  is  the 
greatest  man  out  of  Tennessee,  but  who  is  the  greatest 
in  it.  The  person  selected,  the  question  being  respect- 
ed, must  belong  to  the  commonwealth  of  Tennessee. 
The  reader,  of  course,  anticipates  us — that  the  child 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  31 

selected  must  have  belonged  to  the  Church ;  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  as  introduced  in  the  interrogatory, 
signifies  the  Church.  The  matter,  in  plain  words, 
stands  as  if  the  disciples  said  :  "  Who  is  the  greatest 
in  the  Church."  The  only  point  of  interest  to  the 
reader  is,  how  did  the  Saviour  meet  the  question  ? 
He  called  a  little  child  unto  him,  and  set  him  in  the 
midst,  thereby  showing  that  children  were  in  the 
church  in  his  day.  This  is  undeniable ;  for  the 
disciples  did  not  ask  for  an  example  out  of  the  king- 
dom or  church,  but  for  one  in  it.  A  plainer  case 
could  not  have  arisen — could  not  have  been  recorded. 
The  Jewish  state  of  the  church,  however,  is,  according 
to  our  opinion,  the  thing  expressed. 

John  the  Baptist  and  the  Saviour  were  made  mem- 
bers of  the  Church,  in  her  Jewish  state,  when  eight 
days  old,  in  which  they  lived  and  died.  Luke  speaks 
thus  respecting  their  initiation :  "  And  it  came  to 
pass,  that  on  the  eighth  day  they  came  to  circumcise 
the  child ;  [John]  and  they  called  him  Zacharias, 
after  the  name  of  his  father.  And  his  mother  answered 
and  said.  Not  so;  but  he  shall  be  called  John."  Chap, 
i,  59,  60.  "  And  when  eight  days  were  accomphshed 
for  the  circumcision  of  the  child,  his  name  was  called 
Jesus,"    kc.     Chapter   ii,   21.     The   apostle    Paul, 


32  TRACTS    FOK    THE    TIMES. 

speaking  on  this  subject,  says :  "  Now  I  saj  that 
Jesus  Christ  was  a  minister  of  the  circumcision  for 
the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto 
the  fathers,"  &c.  Romans  xv,  8.  From  this  we 
learn  that  Christ  was  made  a  minister  of  the  circum- 
cision, and  from  the  previous  passage  we  see  that  the 
first  ceremony  took  place  on  the  eighth  day  after  his 
birth.  Thus  by  practice  and  teaching  we  find  that 
infants  were  taken  into  the  Church  in  the  days  of 
John  and  the  Saviour. 

Here  we  shall  notice  a  point  of  more  than  ordinary 
interest — the  fact  of  the  Saviour  being  at  the  temple 
when  twelve  years  old.  Luke  says  :  "  And  when  he 
was  twelve  years  old,  they  went  up  to  Jerusalem 
after  the  custom  of  the  feast."  Cap.  ii,  42,  This 
was  as  early  as  the  Jewish  children  were  permitted  to 
be  present  on  such  occasions. 

Hyrcanus  in  Josephus  :  "  The  law  forbids  the  son 
to  eat  of  the  sacrifice,  before  he  has  come  to  the 
temple,  and  there  presented  an  ofiering  to  God." 
Antiq.  Lib.  4.  Cap.  16.  Sec.  30. 

Calvin  :  "  The  Passover,  which  has  been  succeeded 
by  the  sacred  supper,  did  not  admit  guests  of  all 
descriptions  promiscuously,  but  was  rightly  eaten 
only    by   those    who    were   of  sufiicient   age  to  be 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  33 

able  to  inquire  into  its  meaning."  Institutes,  Lib.  4. 
Cap.  16.  Sec.  30. 

Poole :  "  Children,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years, 
were  brought  by  their  parents  to  the  temple ;  and 
from  that  time,  they  began  to  eat  of  the  Passover  and 
other  sacrifices."     Synopsis  on  Ex.  12.  26. 

Bishop  Patrick :  "  When  children  were  twelve 
years  old,  their  parents  were  bound  to  bring  them  to 
the  temple  at  the  Passover,  where,  seeing  what  was 
done,  they  would  be  led  to  inquire — '  What  mean  ye 
by  these  things  V  "     Com.  on  Ex.  12. 

Rosenmuller :  "  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to 
bring  their  sons,  who  had  attained  to  their  twelfth  year, 
to  the  festivals  at  Jerusalem."     Com.  on  Luke  2,  42. 

Kuinoel :  "It  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  in  those 
times  [the  time  of  Christ]  that  youths  who  had 
attained  to  the  age  of  twelve  years,  should  be  brought 
to  the  festivals  of  Jerusalem.     Com.  on  Luke  2,  42. 

Bloomfield  :  "  The  custom  was,  not  to  take  them 
[the  Jewish  children]  to  the  Passover,  until  they 
should  have  attained  the  years  of  puberty,  a  period 
which  the  Rabbins  tell  us  was  fixed  at  the  twelfth 
year,  when  they  were  held  amenable  to  the  law,  and 
were  called  sons  of  precept.  Then  were  they  also 
introduced  into  the  church,  initiated  into  its  doctrines 
4 


34  TRACTS    FOK    TlIK    TIMES. 

and  ceremonies,  and  consequently  were  taken  with 
their  relations  to  Jerusalem  at  the  festivals."  Critieal 
Digest  on  Luke  2,  42. 

Dr.  Gill,  an  eminent  Baptist,  says :  "  According 
to  the  maxims  of  the  Jews,  persons  were  not  obliged 
to  the  duties  of  the  law,  or  subject  to  the  penalties  of 
it  in  case  of  non-performance,  until  they  were,  a 
female,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  and  one  day,  and 
a  male,  at  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day. 
They  were  not  reckoned  adult  church  members  till 
then ;  nor  then  either,  unless  worthy  persons  ;  for  so 
it  is  said,  '  He  that  is  worthy  is  called,  at  thirteen 
years  of  age,  a  son  of  the  congregation  of  Israel,' 
that  is,  A  member  of  the  Church."  Com.  on  Luke 
2,  42.  See  also  Dr.  Pond's  Treatise  on  Baptism,  to 
which  we  are  indebted  for  these  quotations. 

From  what  is  now  before  us,  in  reference  to  the 
Saviour  being  at  the  temple  when  twelve  years  old, 
we  may  safely  state,  that  he  was  there  by  virtue  of 
his  introduction  into  the  church  by  circumcision 
when  eight  days  old. 

Let  us  here  remark,  that  the  preceding  considera- 
tions may  account  for  the  conduct  of  the  disciples,  on 
a  certain  occasion,  when  children  were  brought  to  the 
Saviour.     They   opposed   the   act,   doubtless,   being 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  35 

influenced  by  the  general  custom,  which  was  to  keep 
children  from  the  public  assemblies  until  they  were 
twelve  years  old.  The  Saviour,  however,  met  the 
matter  thus :  ••'  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
me,  and  forbid  them  not :  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom 
of  God" — the  Church  in  her  Jewish  state.  Mark 
X,  14. 

The  Anti-Pedobaptist,  as  usual,  will  meet  all  this 
by  asking  :  '*  What  good  can  arise  out  of  the  baptism 
of  infants,  seeing  they  are  incapable  of  entering  into 
covenant  relations  Avith  God  ?"  This  could  be  justly 
answered  by  a  reference  to  circumcision,  but  we  pre- 
fer to  let  Inspiration  directly  respond.  We  read  in 
Deuteronomy,  xxix,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15  :  "  Ye 
stand  this  day  all  of  you  before  the  Lord  your  God ; 
your  captains  of  your  tribes,  your  elders,  and  your 
officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel,  your  little  ones, 
your  wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp, 
from  the  hewer  of  thy  wood,  unto  the  drawer  of  thy 
water  :  that  thou  shouldest  enter  into  covenant  with 
the  Lord  thy  God,  and  unto  his  oath,  which  the  Lord 
thy  God  maketh  with  thee  this  day ;  that  he  may 
establish  thee  to-day  for  a  people  unto  himself,  and 
that  he  may  be  unto  thee  a  God,  as  he  hath  said  unto 
thee,  and  as   he  hath  sworn  unto   thy  fathers,    to 


36  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob.  Neither  with  you 
only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this  oath  ;  but  with 
him  that  standeth  here  -with  us  this  day  before  the 
Lord  our  God,  and  also  with  him  that  is  not  here  with 
us  this  day."  This  is  the  account  Inspiration  gives 
of  the  capability  of  little  ones,  infants  or  children, 
to  enter  into  covenant  relations  with  their  Maker. 
But  comment  is  out  of  place  here  !  God  speaks. 

We  shall  conclude  this  chapter  with  the  language 
of  Wetstein :  "  For  since  they  [Apostles]  could  not 
be  ignorant  that  the  boys  and  infants  of  Jews  were 
to  be  circumcised,  so  as  to  become  Jews,  and  be 
brought  into  covenant,  and  that  the  boys  and  infants 
of  Gentile  proselytes  were  not  only  themselves  called 
proselytes,  and  circumcised,  but  were  also  baptized, 
as  I  have  before  fully  proved ;  I  do  not  see  how  it 
could  enter  into  their  thoughts  to  expunge  boys  and 
infants  from  the  list  of  disciples,  or  from  baptism, 
unless  they  had  been  excluded  by  the  express  injunc- 
tions of  Christ,  which  we  nowhere  find."  Com.  on 
Matthew  xxviii,  19. 


TRACTS  FOR   THE   TIMES. 


TRACT   II. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 

NEITHER  WOMAN  NOR  CHILD  IS  EXPRESSLY  MENTIONED  IN  THE 
COMMISSION  GIA'EN  TO  THE  APOSTLES  BY  THE  SAVIOUR.  THE 
WORDS  HE  AND  NATIONS,  AS  THEREIN  USED,  MUST  BE  GENERI- 
CALLY  EXPOUNDED.  — THE  RIGHT  OF  INFANTS  TO  DISCIPLESHIP 
IN  THE  CHURCH  BY  BAPTISM  AMPLIFIED  BY  SUNDRY  PASSAGES 
OF  SCRIPTURE. 

We  open  this  chapter  with  the  commission  of  the 
Saviour,  as  recorded  by  Matthew  and  Mark. 
Matthew :  "  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  &c.  Chap,  xxviii,  19. 
Mark:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the 
gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized,  shall  be  saved:  but  he  that  believeth  not 
shall  be  damned."     Chap,  xvi,  15,  16. 

The  Anti-Pedobaptist  entrenches  himself  here, 
saying  :  "A  person  who  has  a  right  to  a  positive 
institute  must  be  expressly  mentioned  as  having  this 


88  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

right ;  but  infants  are  not  so  mentioned  in  the  com- 
mission ;  hence  it  excludes  them." 

Those  who  are  not  mentioned  are  excluded.  Is 
this  to  be  the  test  ?  Well,  let  us  try  it.  Is  woman 
named  either  by  Mark   or   Matthew  ?     She  is  not. 

Does  not  Mark  state  :  "  He  that  believeth,"  &c  ? 
Is  he  a  woman  ?  Make  the  rule  of  the  Anti-Pedo- 
baptist  a  test  of  practice,  and  you  dare  not  baptize 
a  woman.  She  is  not  "  expressly  mentioned  "  in  tho 
commission.  Neither  woman  nor  child  is  "  expressly 
mentioned."  This  is  the  true  state  of  the  case.  What 
then  ?  Simply  this,  he  is  generically  used  in  the 
commission,  and  must  be  so  presented  in  every  just 
exposition. 

"  He  that  eateth  and  drinketh  unworthily,"  &c.  Is 
woman  expressly  mentioned  here  ?  No.  This  view 
of  things  ought  to  convince  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  of 
the  fact,  that  the  rule  he  applies  to  the  commission  not 
only  excludes  women  and  infants  from  baptism,  but 
women  from  the  Lord's  supper. 

Bloomfield,  Stuart,  Woods,  and  many  other  learned 
Pedobaptists,  allege,"  says  an  Anti-Pedobaptist, 
"  that  there  is  no  positive  precept  respecting  the 
admission  of  females  to  the  Lord's  supper." 

When    the  Anti-Pedobaptist   comes   to   baptize   a 


INFANT     BAPTI»:.I.  SB 

woman,  he  must  seek  for  his  authority  in  the  word  Zsc, 
because  it  is  genericallj  used  in  the  commission.  Now, 
while  he  advocates  the  principle,  that  woman  is  implied 
in  the  word  7ie,  we  shall,  on  the  same  principle,  place 
infants  in  the  premises,  and,  as  a  natural  conse- 
quence, maintain  their  right  to  baptism. 

Natiojis  is  a  generic  term  also  ;  hence  infants  are 
included,  and  thereby  held  up  as  fit  subjects  for  dis- 
cipleship  by  baptism. 

These  comments  unfold  the  true  character  of  the 
commission,  unless  our  judgment  is  incapable  of  dis- 
criminating between  truth  and  error. 

The  reader,  from  what  has  been  said,  will  at  once 
perceive  that  much  depends  on  the  proper  under- 
standing of  terms.  For  instance,  hoy^  girl,  or  ivoman, 
are  particular  terms  which  definitely  express  our 
thoughts  in  reference  to  distinct  individuals ;  and 
believer  is  a  concrete  term,  which  embodies  certain 
attributes  of  the  person  mentioned  :  but  he  and  nations 
are  generic  terms,  which  include,  in  certain  connec- 
tions, all — from  the  helpless  infant  up  to  the  man  of 
many  years. 

The  Anti-Pedobaptist,  feeling  that  he  cannot  find 
woman  expressly  mentioned  in  the  commission,  savs. 
by  way  of  covering  up  the  fiital  consequenoo,?  nf  ]ii,s 


40  TKACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

rule  :  "  Infants  arc  not  commanded  to  be  baptized  ; 
therefore  they  should  not  be  baptized."  To  tliis  -vvc 
reply,  in  the  language  of  Lightfoot :  "  It  is  not  pro- 
hibited that  infants  should  be  baptized  ;  therefore  they 
should  be  baptized."  This  is  how  we  meet  the  objec- 
tion, making  all  things  even. 

"  Did  not  women  commune  with  the  men  from  the 
day  of  Pentecost  onward  ?"  asks  the  Anti-Pedobaptist. 
He  refers  us  to  Acts  ii ,  42.  The  reference  may  be 
to  their  feasts  of  love ;  but  let  this  be  as  it  may,  the 
case  does  not  amount  to  a  command,  nor  to  any  thing 
like  it.  We  admit  that  they  communed  with  men 
from  the  day  of  Pentecost  onward ;  but  deny  that 
they  are  expressly  mentioned  where  the  sacraments 
are  directly  spoken  of  in  reference  to  the  time  they 
were  instituted. 

The  Anti-Pedobaptist  being  thus  driven  from  his 
position,  rephes  :  "  If  I  cannot  find  women  expressly 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  institution  of  the 
sacraments,  I  can  prove  by  the  testimony  of  Inspira- 
tion that  they  were  baptized  with  men,  which  reads  : 
'  They  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.'  See 
Acts  viii,  12.  If  infants  had  then  been  baptized, 
would  they  not  have  been  mentioned  ?  This,"  says 
he,  "  I  consider  unanswerable." 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  41 

He  is,  AYithout  doubt,  carried  away  with  the  sound 
of  words.  It  can  be  answered — even  to  satisfaction. 
We  are  informed  in  Acts  ii,  37,  38,  39,  thus :  "  Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?  Then  Peter  said 
unto  them,  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you, 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For 
the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  shall  call."  Here  we  have  men,  brethren  and 
children,  named  in  connection  with  baptism,  but  not 
a  word  respecting  woman  in  the  paragraph.  All,  how- 
ever we  particularly  care  to  make  out  of  this  is,  that 
the  omission  of  women  does  not  furnish  a  legitimate 
argument  against  their  right  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism — hence,  on  the  other  hand,  the  omission  of 
children  must  not  be  taken  as  an  evidence  of  their 
exclusion. 

We  can  more  clearly  illustrate  this  by  a  quotation 
from  the  Old  Testament :  "  And  so  it  was,  that  all 
that  fell  that  day,  both  of  men  and  women,  were 
twelve  thousand,  even  all  the  men  of  Ai.  For  Joshua 
drew  not  his  hand  back  wherewith  he  stretched  out 
the  spear,  until  he  had  utterly  destroyed  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Ai."     Joshua  viii,  25  26. 


42  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

JNIen  and  women  are  only  spoken  of  as  in  the 
case  of  Samaria ;  but  who  would,  because  of  this, 
argue  against  the  idea  of  infants  being  in  Ai  ?  See 
also  Judges  ix,  49,  61. 

The  Anti-Pedobaptist,  seeing  all  these  points  Scrip- 
turallj  met,  opens  his  Greek  lexicon,  and  tells  us 
that  tehia,  of  which  cliildren  is  a  translation,  means 
posterity — adding  this  much  of  his  own,  "  adult 
posterity,"  which  he  follows  up  by  asserting  that  the 
true  meaning  of  the  passage  quoted  from  Peter's  ser- 
mon is :  "  For  the  promise,  whether  of  baptism  or  the 
spirit,  is  to  you  and  to  your  adult  posterity."  Tekna, 
as  used  by  Peter,  simply  means  infant  posterity  in  a 
direct  sense,  for,  when  we  speak  of  our  posterity,  do 
we  not  mean  children  or  infants  ?  Certainly.  The 
word  tekna  comes  from  the  verb  tikto,  which  signifies 
to  bring  forth.  Sperma,  of  which  seed  is  a  transla- 
tion in  the  promise  made  to  Abraham,  concerning 
future  blessings,  which  is  recorded  in  Genesis,  is 
synonymous  with  tehia — hence  seed  and  cliildren  are 
expressive,  in  a  direct  sense,  of  infant  posterity.  The 
words  and  the  passages  must  alike  be  abandoned  by 
every  Anti-Pedobaptist.  They  cannot  even  remotely 
assist  the  doctrine.  Our  position,  of  a  truth,  has  their 
entire  support. 


INFANT      BAPTISM.  43 

We  shall  now  present  a  very  striking  proof  of  the 
doctrine  we  are  pleading  for  under  the  application  of 
commission.  It  is  recorded  in  loth  of  Acts.  Dr. 
John  P.  Campbell  gives  it  thus  :  "  Except  ye  be  cir- 
cumcised after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be 
saved."  The  manner  of  Moses  required  the  circum- 
cision of  infants,  as  well  as  of  adults,  and  of  course 
these  troublesome  Jews,  who  disturbed  the  church  in 
Antioch,  contended  for  the  circumcision  of  infants  in 
that  place.  Infants  then  were  as  much  the  objects  in 
this  controversy  as  adults.  Now  what  says  Peter  ? 
"  Why  tempt  ye  God  to  put  a  yoke  [circumcision] 
upon  the  neck  of  the  disciples  " — that  is,  upon  infants, 
as  well  as  upon  adults — therefore  infants  were  dis- 
ciples in  the  Church  of  Antioch ;  and  those  infant 
disciples  must  have  been  baptized ;  for  the  apostles 
were  commanded  to  baptize  disciples  of  every  descrip- 
tion."    See  his  work  on  Baptism,  p.  36. 

When  we  consider  that  the  sense  of  the  commission 
runs  thus — Disciple  all  nations,  we  have  in  the 
previous  proof  from  Acts  a  clear  case  of  infant  dis- 
cipleship  by  baptism. 

Eph.  ii,  14  :  "  For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made 
both  one,  and  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
between  us."     Jews  and  Gentiles  arc  here  included. 


44  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

The  meaning  is,  that  the  partition  which  had  long 
separated  the  Gentiles  from  the  Jews  was  broken 
down  by  the  death  of  Christ,  which  opened  up  an 
opportunity  to  the  Gentiles  of  being  one  with  the 
Jews  in  all  things.  The  Jewish  state  of  the  church 
was  not  totally  dissolved  at  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles, 
the  quotation  under  examination  being  allowed  to 
decide.  In  plain  terms,  the  opposers  of  this  view  of 
the  case  must  prove  that  the  covenant  which  secured 
infant  membership  to  the  Jews  was,  while  the  partition 
stood,  repealed,  totally  abrogated,  or  be  at  once 
persuaded  that  we  have  but  given  the  exact  sense  of 
the  passage  before  us. 

Romans  xi,  17  :  "  And  if  some  of  the  branches  be 
broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a  wild  olive-tree,  wert 
grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them  partakest  of 
the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive-tree  ;  boast  not  thy- 
self against  the  branches."  We  learn  from  this  pas- 
sage that  the  ancient  church  state  was  continued, 
having  some  of  its  members  broken  off,  and  the 
Gentiles  grafted  in.  The  very  idea  of  the  wild  olive- 
tree,  including  a  variety  of  branches,  great  and  small, 
is  sufficient  of  itself  to  convince  the  thinking  mind 
that  infants  were  intended  in  the  figure  as  well  as 
adults.     The  branches  that  were  broken  off  had  their 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  45 

children  broken  off  with  them,  and  the  branches  that 
were  grafted  in  with  the  wild  olive-tree  had  theii* 
children  grafted  in  with  them.  The  former,  of  course, 
refers  to  the  unbelieving  Jews,  and  the  latter  to  the 
believing  Gentiles. 

Jeremiah,  speaking  to  the  church,  says :  "  The 
Lord  called  thy  name  a  green  olive-tree.''^  Chap,  xi, 
16.  Hosea  sajs  :  "  His  branches  shall  spread,  and 
his  beauty  shall  be  as  the  olive-tree."  Chap,  xiv,  6. 

The  opinion  of  Professor  Stuart  is  highly  worthy  of 
a  place  here.  It  runs  thus  :  "  The  wild  olive  was 
often  grafted  into  the  fruitful  one,  when  it  began  to 
decay,  and  thus  not  only  brought  forth  fruit,  but 
caused  the  decaying  olive-tree  to  revive  and  flourish. 
The  image  which  the  apostle  here  employs  is,  there- 
fore, a  very  vivid  one.  The  Gentiles  had  been 
grafted  in  upon  the  Jewish  church,  and  had  caused 
this  decayed  tree  to  revive  and  flourish.  But  still 
the  apostle  means  to  hold  in  check  any  exultation  of 
the  Gentiles  on  account  of  this.  He  reminds  them, 
that  after  all  they  are  not  the  stock,  but  only  grafts  ; 
that  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  good  olive  have  been 
transferred  to  them,  only  because  they  have  been 
grafted  into  it.  All  this  shows  that,  in  the  apostle's 
view,  there  has  been,  in  reality,  but  one  church  ;  the 


46  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TLMES. 

ancient  Jewish  one  being  the  foundation,  the  Christian 
one  the  superstructure  and  completion  of  the  build- 
ing." Com.  on  Eom.  11,  17.  This  gives  the  very 
soul  of  the  passage. 

The  baptism  of  households  now  claims  our  attention. 
The  Peshito-Syriac  version  says  :  "  When  she  [Lydia] 
Tvas  baptized  with  her  children."  See  Rev.  J.  T. 
Hendrick's  Letters  on  Baptism,  p.  19.  The  old  Coptic 
version  speaks  the  same.     See  Kurtz,  p.  99. 

We  do  not  deem  it  essential  to  our  subject  to 
number  all  the  baptized  households  mentioned  in  the 
New  Testament,  nor  to  inquire  into  the  possibility  and 
probability  of  children  being  in  them ;  inasmuch  as  we 
are  perfectly  satisfied,  if  they  were  all  without  children, 
they,  without  doubt,  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the 
most  remarkable  list  of  households  on  record — whether 
we  refer  to  sacred  or  common  history.  Dr.  Light- 
foot  justly  observes  :  "  The  stress  of  the  business  lies 
not  so  much  in  this,  whether  it  can  be  proved  there 
were  children  in  the  households,  as  that,  if  there 
were,  they  certainly  were  baptized."  Quoted  from 
Dr.  Pond's  Treatise  on  Baptism,  p.  95. 

1  Cormthians  x,  2  :  "  And  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Now,  take  this 
passage  and  connect  it  with  the  narrative  to  which  it 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  47 

belongs — then  give  the  Avhole  a  careful  examination, 
and  the  obvious  signification  will  run  thus — that  the 
deliverance  of  the  Israelites  from  the  yoke  of  Pharaoh 
may  justly  be  viewed  as  a  type  of  our  redemption 
from  sin  now ;  that  their  journey  through  the  wilder- 
ness to  the  promised  land  may  justly  be  viewed  as  a 
type  of  our  march  to  heaven  now  ;  that  their  baptism 
by  affusion  from  the  cloud,  and  by  the  sprinkling  of 
the  spray  from  the  ocean,  may  justly  be  viewed  as  a 
type  of  baptism  now ;  that  the  subjects  then  may 
justly  be  viewed  as  types  of  the  subjects  for  baptism 
now ;  that  the  adults  then  may  justly  be  viewed  as 
types  of  adults  now ;  and  that  the  children  then  may 
justly  be  viewed  as  types  of  children  now.  To  exclude 
one  of  these  types,  or  representations,  would  be  equal 
to  making  this  text  imperfect  in  meaning ;  but  to 
retain  these  types,  or  representations,  as  above  pre- 
sented, is,  we  humbly  think,  equal  to  having,  and 
keeping  to,  a  proper  view  of  the  matter.  Was  not 
the  child  baptized  as  well  as  the  adult?  Certainly. 
If  the  adult  was  a  type,  was  not  the  child  a  type 
also  ?  Most  assuredly.  A  clearer  proof  of  infant 
baptism,  all  things  considered,  could  not  reasonably 
be  desired. 

jNIr.  A.  Campbell,  however,  informs  us  thus  :  "  The 


48  TRACTS   FOR    THE  TIMES. 

Jews  were  members  of  the  politico-ecclesiastico  church 
by  natural  birth.  Circumcision  was  no  initiatory  rite 
or  door  to  them."  See  Debate  with  Rice,  p.  296. 
Gentle  reader,  please  contrast  this  with  the  evidence 
of  this  chapter  and  the  one  that  precedes  it,  and  you 
will  fully  be  convinced  of  this  truth,  that  an  unsup- 
portable  cause  needs  desperate  premises,  and  dreadful 
conclusions. 

Well,  let  us  hear  how  blessed  Stephen,  of  precious 
memory,  spoke  of  this  matter  when  about  to  die  for 
the  cause  of  his  God :  "  This  is  he  that  was  in  the 
church  in  the  wilderness  with  the  angel  which  spake 
to  him  in  the  mount  Sinai,  and  ivith  our  fathers,  who 
received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us."  Acts 
vii,  38. 

Stephen  had  not  learned,  under  the  guidance  of 
Inspiration,  to  call  God's  people  in  the  wilderness  "  a 
politico-ecclestiastico  church."  No,  no — but  a  church, 
in  which  Christ  and  Moses  dwelt. 

"  The  church  in  the  wilderness."  Did  baptized 
children  make  a  portion  of  it  ?  Certainly  ;  for  Paul 
says — "  all  were  baptized."  This  is  an  irresistable 
point,  and  of  course  it  will  continue  to  be  so,  until 
mind  ceases  to  respect  the  teaching  of  a  type,  which 
was  not  restricted  at  its  origin,  nor  abrogated  since  ; 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  49 

and  so  we  close  this  chapter,  hoping  that  our  Anti- 
Pedobaptist  friends  will  abandon  the  language  of  Mr. 
Campbell,  Booth,  and  others,  and  adopt  the  language 
of  Stephen — though  the  baptized  children  may  con- 
stitute a  modern  Mordecai  at  the  King  of  Zion's  gate. 
5 


TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

TRACT  III. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 

TUB  RIGUT  TO   BAPTIZE  INFANTS  IS  AS  SELF-EVIDENT  AS  THE 
PKOVISIONS   OF  AN   UNREPEALED  LAW. 

In  the  outset  of  this  Tract,  which  is  intended  to 
illustrate  and  confirm  the  doctrine  set  forth  in  the 
two  that  precede  it,  we  beg  leave  to  show  that  infant 
baptism  made  a  portion  of  the  ceremonies  in  the 
Jewish  state  of  the  church. 

Mr.  B.  W.  Noel,  Baptist,  says,  quoting  from 
Goodwin :  "  We  do  not  assume  that  Christian  baptism 
was  in  all  respects  the  same  as  Jewish  baptism."  See 
his  work  on  Baptism,  p.  51,  New  York  ed.  1850. 

Watson  says :  "  This  baptism  of  Proselytes,  as 
Lightfoot  has  fully  showed,  was  a  baptism  of  families, 
and  comprehended  their  infant  children  ;  and  the  rite 
was  a  symbol  of  their  being  washed  from  the  pollutions 
of  idolatry."     See  his  Institutes,  vol.  2,  p.  632. 


TRACTS   FOR   THE   TIMES.  51 

Dr.  "Wall  says :  "  The  whole  body  of  the  Jews, 
men,  •women,  and  children,  were  in  Moses'  time  bap- 
tized. After  which  the  male  children  of  Proselytes, 
that  were  entered  with  their  parents,  were,  (as  w^ell 
as  their  parents)  admitted  by  circumcision,  baptism, 
and  sacrifice  ;  the  female  children  by  baptism  and 
sacrifice."     Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  26,  London  ed.  1844. 

Dr.  Lightfoot  says  :  "  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
people  that  flocked  to  John's  baptism  were  so  forget- 
ful of  the  manner  and  custom  of  the  nation,  as  not  to 
bring  their  little  children  along  with  them  to  be  bap- 
tized."    Sbrce  Hebraicce  on  3Iatthew,  3,  6. 

We  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  quote  a  vast  array 
of  authority  on  this  subject.  What  is  before  us  is  to 
point  and  purpose.  We  shall  mention,  however,  for 
the  sake  of  showing  the  reader  that  he  may  not  fear 
to  found  his  faith  here,  a  number  of  authors  that  so 
believe,  and  speak.  Epictetus,  Calmet,  Hammond, 
Jahn,  RosenmuUer,  Clarke,  Dr.  John  P.  Campbell, 
George  Smith,  Selden,  Maimonides,  Rabbi  Joseph, 
Rabbi  Hezekiah,  and  St.  Cyprian,  are  of  the  class 
named. 

But  let  us  here  insert  the  opinion  of  Maimonides, 
the  celebrated  Jewish  writer,  in  order  to  meet  the 
objection  of  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  as  to  the  origin  of 


62  INFANT     BAPTISM. 

Jewish  baptism.  He  says :  "  Baptism  was  in  the 
desert  before  the  giving  of  the  law,  according  as  it  is 
said,  thou  shalt  sanctify  them."  Quoted  by  Dv 
John  P.  Campbell,  p.  32.  How  appropriately  we 
may  here  say,  that  Dr.  Lightfoot  but  unfolds  the 
whole  truth  in  stating :  "  The  baptizing  of  infants 
was  a  thing  as  well  known  in  the  church  of  the  Jews, 
as  ever  it  has  been  in  the  Christian  Church."  See 
him  on  Matt.iii,  6. 

From  what  precedes  we  learn  that  the  Jews  made 
disciples  of  the  children  of  the  Gentiles,  in  the  days 
of  the  Saviour,  by  baptism.  In  addition  we  remark, 
that  they  made  disciples  of  their  own  children 
by  circumcision,  so  far  as  males  were  concerned. 
Inspiration  being  allowed  to  speak.  This  gives  us  a 
just  view  of  the  established  custom  of  the  Church 
then  respecting  infants.  Here  we  may  well  ask,  was 
this  custom  so  changed,  or  repealed,  as  to  preclude 
the  continuance  of  cliildren,  by  any  rite,  in  the  Church 
of  God  ?  No.  Let  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  but  show 
that  in  this  particular  we  are  mistaken,  and  our  cause 
must  sink  into  ruin.  But  this  cannot  be  done — 
Therefore  our  cause  is  that  of  truth  made  immutable. 

Just  think  of  it — that,  at  a  time  when  children 
were  as  much  entitled  to  discipleship  or  membersliip 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  53 

as  adults,  the  Saviour  said  to  the  apostles — Go,  bap- 
tize the  nations,  instead  of — Go  circumcise  the  nations, 
without  excluding  a  human  soul,  and  you  will  at  once 
perceive  that  they  could  not  have,  apart  from  an 
intervening  Inspiration,  thought  of  any  thing  to  the 
contrary  of  the  baptism  of  children  with  their  parents, 
or  without  them. 

It  is  said,  by  way  of  objection,  "  that  baptism  could 
not  have  come  in  the  place  of  circumcison,  since  the 
latter  was  applied  to  none  but  males."  This  is  con- 
sidered by  some  a  formidable  objection.  Is  not 
woman  included  in  the  word  he,  as  it  is  found  in  the 
commission  ?  On  the  same  principle  she  was  included 
in  the  woi'd  he,  as  contemplated  in  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  "  No  uncircumcised  person,"  says  Dr. 
Pond,  p.  83,  "  was  allowed  to  partake  of  the  Passover, 
yet  females  partook  of  it  as  well  as  males  ;  (See  Luke 
ii,  41;)  which  shows  that  though  they  bore  not  the 
external  mark,  they  were  regarded  as  of  the  circum 
cision."     This  unfolds  the  whole  matter. 

In  a  word,  we  may  directly  risk  every  thing,  so 
far  as  a  basis  for  infant  baptism  is  concerned,  on  the 
unconderaned  and  unsubverted  custom  of  the  Church 
in  the  days  of  the  Saviour.  Then  were  infants  made 
discij>les  or  members — the  children  of  the  Jews  one 


64  TRACTS   FOll    THE   TIMES. 

way,  and  the  cliildren  of  the  Gentiles  another;  still, 
the  whole  procedure  was  regarded  as  being  covered 
by  the  provisions  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  This 
is  our  Sinai. 

We  shall  now  proceed  to  amplify  and  confirm  all 
that  precedes  on  infant  baptism,  or  the  right  to  dis- 
cipleship  in  the  Church  by  baptism,  by  showing,  in 
the  light  of  incontrovertible  rules,  the  tranfer  of  the 
principle  from  one  dispensation  to  another. 

1.  It  is  a  well  known  principle  in  law,  which  can  not 
reasonably  be  doubted,  that  when  a  right  is  once 
granted,  named  and  specified,  it  (the  right)  must  so 
remain  until  the  law  be  repealed  by  the  proper 
authority,  and  the  record  made. 

Now,  according  to  this  rule  the  matter  will  run 
thus — that,  as  infants  were  once  placed  in  the  Jewish 
state  of  the  church  by  divine  appointment,  and  as  the 
law  that  granted  them  the  right  to  discipleship  or 
membership  never  has  been  repealed,  the  right,  as  a 
thing  of  consequence,  has  continued  unimpaired,  and 
ever  must  do  so,  until  the  Head  of  the  Church  will 
subvert  the  law,  by  abrogating  the  right,  causing  a 
record  of  the  whole  to  be  made,  so  that  all  may  read 
and  understand. 

To  evade  this,  the  Auti-Pedobaptist  demands  "a 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  OO 

law  or  command  in  the  New  Testament  for  infant 
membership."  To  this  we  reply,  that  the  demand  is 
equal  to  asking  for  the  origination  of  a  law  to  prove  a 
right,  when  a  law  is  in  force  sustaining  the  right. 
Had  there  been  no  previous  right  for  infant  disciple- 
ship,  running  before  the  days  of  the  Savdour  and 
}iis  apostles,  it  certainly  would  devolve  on  us  to 
produce  a  law,  bearing  on  the  subject,  from  the  New 
Testament ;  but  as  the  case  stands,  it  would  be  as 
foolish  in  us  to  look  for  such  a  law  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  it  would  be  for  a  lawyer  to  look  for  the 
incorporation  of  a  city  in  the  written  acts  of  a 
Legislative  assembly  dated  1850,  which  had  been 
incorporated  in  1840. 

Of  a  truth,  these  considerations  must  address  them- 
selves to  men  that  reflect,  and  deeply  convince  them 
that  God  gave  a  law  on  infant  membership  to  the 
household  of  Abraham,  by  which  the  seed  of  this  man 
of  faith,  at  eight  days  old,  were  to  be  introduced  into 
the  Jewish  state  of  the  church — not  excepting  John 
the  Baptist  and  the  Saviour  ;  and  that  this  law  is  in 
force  now,  not  in  its  original  form,  but  in  principle, 
commending  itself  to  every  branch  of  the  church, 
that  is  properly  instructed  in  the  will  of  God,  and 
duly   organized   according  to   the   form  of  doctrine 


66  TUACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

delivered  to  the  world  by  the  apostles.  We  ask  for 
the  repeal  of  this  law,  or  for  an  honest  submission  to 
it.     How  Scriptural  !     Will  reason  refuse. 

2.  When  laws  are  repealed  in  part,  a  right  sanc- 
tioned by  the  unrepealed  portion  of  them  not  only 
continues  as  before,  but  receives  an  additional  sanction 
by  the  act. 

Having  judged  by  our  first  rule,  and  found  it  invin- 
cible in  its  application  to  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism, 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  a  similar  consideration  and 
use  of  the  second — knowing  that  it  will  also  clearly 
vindicate  the  same  subject,  and  place  it,  if  possible,  in 
a  stronger  attitude,  leaving  it  as  if  addressing  itself, 
and  commending  itself,  to  the  minds  of  all.  The  sense 
of  the  second  rule  must  be  thus  understood — that 
when  laws  were  repealed  in  part,  or  in  part  abolished, 
the  law  of  infant  membership  remained  untouched — 
was  not  changed  nor  altered  by  the  prophets,  the 
Saviour,  or  the  apostles — thereby  giving  us  not  only 
to  understand  that  it  was  designed  for  continuance, 
but  that  it  did,  from  this  fact,  receive  additional  con- 
firmation. This  principle,  we  think,  must  be  embraced 
by  every  observing  and  reflecting  mind.  For  instance, 
when  a  Legislative  assembly  changes  features  of  a 
law,   and   leaves    other   features   of    the  same   law 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  57 

unchanged,  does  it  not,  by  such  an  act,  give  additional 
approval  to  the  unrepealed  portions  of  the  law,  while 
it  leaves  the  rights  allowed  thereby  the  same,  or  in 
as  full  force,  as  ever  ?  Most  assuredly.  In  hke  man- 
ner are  we  to  look  on  infant  membership.  Many 
things  were  changed  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  and 
many  thing  numbered  with  the  past,  and  accounted 
for  as  serving  the  purpose  for  which  they  were 
designed ;  but  infant  membership  was  allowed  to 
remain  as  it  was  found  divinely  sanctioned,  and  so  to 
remain  for  all  ages.  It  was  not  even  mooted  by  one 
of  them. 

We  admit,  as  clearly  stated  above,  that  during  the 
lives  of  the  apostles,  laws  and  customs  that  had  been 
long  time-honored,  were  either  wholly  abolished,  or 
set  forth  to  be  continued  in  part ;  but  insist  that  the 
law  of  infant  membership  was  neither  abrogated  in 
principle,  nor  changed  in  any  essential  feature,  but 
turned  over  to  the  church  with  additional  approval ; 
being  accounted  by  the  apostles,  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  worthy  of  an  abiding  place  in  the 
Book  of  life  ;  and  consequently  in  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  the  churcli . 

A  question  of  the  highest  interest  arises  here — did 
the  apostles  repeal  or  change  other  laws,  leaving  the 


58  TRACTS   FOB    THE   TIMES. 

law  on  infant  membership  unrepealed,  thereby  giving 
it  additional  confirmation  ?  We  answer  yes.  If  this' 
should  be  doubted,  let  the  chapter  and  verse  be 
named  in  which  a  contrary  doctrine  can  be  found,  and 
we  shall  abandon  this  view  of  the  subject.  Knowing, 
however,  that  our  position  is  based  on  truth,  made 
immutable,  we  here  remark,  that  our  second  rule  is 
fully  met  by  facts  in  the  case,  namely,  that  the  law 
of  infant  membership  was  not  abrogated  by  the 
apostles,  though  other  laws  were,  which  left  it  under 
an  additional  sanction. 

This,  we  think,  cannot  be  gainsayed  nor  confuted 
by  any  of  the  sons  of  men,  while  justice,  the  nature 
of  things,  and  sound  reasoning,  will  remain  respected. 
Honesty  exclaims — the  conclusion  ought  to  be  gain- 
sayed or  received ! 

3.  When  a  law  is  silently  passed  over  that  has  been 
long  in  force,  while  other  laws  and  portions  of  laws 
are  repealed,  this  very  silence  is  the  strongest  possible 
proof  of  its  approval. 

According  to  this  rule  the  very  silence  of  the 
apostles  on  the  law  of  infant  membership,  when  they 
spoke  and  acted  freely  in  reference  to  other  laws,  is 
the  strongest  proof  possible  of  its  approval.  To  illus- 
trate this,  if  an  article  of  a  constitution,  when  a  con- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  59 

vention  meets  to  form  a  new  constitution,  be  allowed 
to  remain  without  discussion  or  objection,  the  very 
silence,  of  course,  of  the  assembly,  must  be  regarded 
as  the  most  decided  sanction  of  it.  In  this  light 
exactly  we  are  to  look  on  the  law  of  infant  member- 
ship. This  gives  us  a  proper  idea  of  its  true  situation. 
But  lest  we  should  be  misunderstood  we  remark, 
though  we  maintain  that  the  apostles  did  not  alter — 
the  idea  of  subverting  being  out  of  question — the 
principle  involved  in  infant  membership,  nor  even 
agitate,  in  any  form,  the  custom,  but  gave  it  their 
undisturbed,  silent,  sanction,  when  other  customs 
were  changed;  yet  we  are  convinced,  that  their 
writings  abound  with  the  idea,  and  that  they  developed 
the  doctrine  by  their  practice — if  language  has  an 
implied  meaning,  or  custom  can  confirm  any  thing. 
But  to  hunt  for  a  law  on  infant  membership  in  the 
New  Testament  is  magnificently  preposterous.  Would 
you  thing  of  seeking  in  a  civil  code  for  a  new  law  to 
prove  a  right,  the  whole  nation  knowing  the  right  to 
be  secured  by  a  law  long  in  force  ?  If  you  would — 
then  go  to  the  New  Testament  to  find  original  author- 
ity for  infant  membership.  Reader,  pause,  and  reflect. 
The  silence,  therefore,  of  the  New  Testament,  as 
above  advocated,  on  the  subject  of  infant  membership, 


60  TRACTS  FOR  THE   TIMES. 

is  the  strongest  proof  we  can  urge  in  reference  to  its 
sanction.  This  is  much  more  conclusive  than  stransre. 
And  now  let  us  illustrate,  in  a  concentrated  way, 
all  we  have  said  on  the  right  of  infants  to  mem- 
bership or  discipleship  in  the  church.  The  State  of 
Alabama  has  a  law  that  provides  for  the  protection 
of  female  property,  so  that  it  cannot  be  spent  by  the 
husband.  This  law,  be  it  remembered,  provides  not 
only  for  the  female  child  that  now  lives,  but  for  every 
female  child  of  the  far  oflf  future.  The  child  that  is 
now  sung  to  in  the  cradle  has  as  good  a  right  to  the 
protection  of  this  law  as  the  young  lady  just  lately 
married.  So  it  is  with  regard  to  the  right  of  infants 
to  membership  in  the  church  of  Christ.  The  child  on 
the  lap  of  the  mother  has  a  claim  to  membership  as 
well  founded  as  the  adult  who  sings  his  hymn  by  the 
altar  of  the  church.  It  will  require  a  full  repeal  of 
the  law  in  the  State  of  Alabama,  and  a  record  of  this 
made,  before  the  child  of  futurity  can  be  looked  on  as 
unprotected  in  the  right  to  property  that  it  (the  law) 
now  aifords.  The  infant,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
had  a  right  to  membership  in  the  Jewish  state  of  the 
church  ;  and  nothing  could  obliterate  this  right  but  a 
full  repeal  of  the  law  that  gave  it,  clearly  expressed 
in   record.     The  repeal  not  having  been  made,  the 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  61 

right  was   transferred  to  the  Christian  state  of  the 
church,  and  has  so  continued  until  now. 

May  we  not,  in  view  of  the  considerations  before 
us,  justly  state,  that  the  right  to  baptize  infants  is  as 
self-evident  as  the  provision  of  an  unrepealed  law. 


TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 


TRACT  IV. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  PROVED    BY    CIRCUMCISION.  —  THE  YIEWS  AND 
PRACTICE    OF  THE  FATHERS  BEING  RESPECTED. 

Justin  Martyr,  140.  A.  D.,  says  :"  We  have  not 
received  that  carnal  circumcision,  but  the  spiritual 
circumcision,  which  Enoch,  and  those  hke  him,  ob- 
served. And  we  have  received  it  bj  baptism,  through 
the  mercy  of  God,  because  we  were  sinners ;  and  it 
is  incumbent  on  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the  same 
way."  See  Buigham's  Christian  Ant.  vol.  3,  p.  161, 
London  ed.  1834. 

The  question  that  now  arises  is,  what  does  Justin 
mean  ?  He  means  that  it  is  incumbent  on  all  to 
receive  spiritual  circumcision  by  baptism — Whence 
infants  must  be  baptized,  for  the  undeniable  reason 
that  they  make  a  portion  of  all.  This  was  the  doctrine 
of  Justin  about  forty  years  after  the  death  of  John — 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  63 

tlic  apostle  of  love.  Words  cannot  make  infant  bap- 
tism plainer  than  the  quotation  before  us.  Justin 
tells  Trjpho,  a  Jew,  that  spiritual  circumcision  is 
received  by  baptism,  and  that  all  must  receive  it  in 
the  same  way,  whether  young  in  years  or  advanced 
in  age. 

Here  we  insist  on  our  conclusion,  most  confidently 
saying  to  the  Anti-Pedobaptist,  when  it  can  be  made 
appear  that  infants  or  children  do  not  make  a  portion 
of  all — then,  not  till  then,  will  the  testimony  of  Justin 
be  found  without  application  to  our  cause. 

But,  while  bowing  to  his  authority  on  a  question  of 
fact,  we  wish  it  to  be  remembered,  that  we  do  not  ask 
him  for  an  opinion  on  any  point  of  doctrine,  but 
simply  to  tell  us  what  the  church  did  and  said  within 
his  day.  We  know,  and  want  the  reader  to  know  it 
too,  that  he  borrows  the  idea  of  regeneration  at  bap- 
tism from  our  Lord's  declarations  to  Nicodemus,  John 
iii,  and  enforces,  in  the  dialogue  from  which  the 
quotation  is  taken,  the  doctrine  with  zeal  and  ability. 
This  by  the  way,  but  augments  his  testimony  on  the 
abstract  point  of  infant  baptism  ;  for  it  shows,  accord- 
ing to  his  judgment,  the  necessity  of  the  practice. 

Bingham,  same  page,  says  :  "  If  baptism  be  answer- 
able to  circumcision,  and  succeeded  in  its  room,  and 


61  TRACTS    FOR    THE   TIMES. 

be  necessary  [as  Justin  states]  to  be  received  as  the 
means  to  obtain  the  true  circumcision  of  the  Spirit ; 
then  as  infants  were  admitted  to  circumcision,  so  they 
were  to  be  admitted  to  baptism." 

Wall,  after  quoting  and  translating  the  language  of 
Justin  in  reference  to  circumcision,  remarks  :  "  It  is 
plain  that  this  most  ancient  father  does  here  speak  of 
baptism  being  to  Christians  in  the  stead  of  circum- 
cision ;  and  the  analogy  between  these  two  is  one  of 
the  arguments  used  by  the  Pedobaptists  to  prove 
that  one  ought  to  be  given  to  infants,  as  well  as  the 
other  was."     Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  65. 

Dr.  Pond  says :  "  The  Scriptures  clearly  coun- 
tenance the  idea,  that  baptism  is  substituted  in  the 
place  of  circumcision."  Again:  "The  primitive 
Christian  fathers  considered  baptism  as  having  come 
in  the  place  of  circumcision."  All  this  will  be  made 
evident  immediately.  See  Pond  on  Baptism,  pp.  80, 
81,  Boston  ed.  1833. 

Bishop  Kenrick  says ;  "It  would  be  easy  to 
exhibit  a  series  of  ancient  witnesses,  who,  following 
the  apostolic  teaching,  speak  of  the  Christian  rite  as  a 
spiritual  circumcision,  freed  from  the  limitations  which 
circumscribed  the  carnal  observance.  St.  Justin,  St. 
Cyprian,  with  the  Fathers  of  the  council  of  Carthage, 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  65 

St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  St.  Epiphanus,  St.  Chry- 
sostom,  St.  Augustine,  in  a  word  all  the  Fathers  point 
to  baptism  as  to  Christian  circumcision."  See  his 
Treatise  on  Baptism,  pp.  130,  131,  Phil.  ed.  1843. 

George  S.  Faber  says  :  "  Circumcision  and  baptism 

are  two  sacramental  signs  of  exactly  the  same  import. 

They  must,  therefore,  to  all  effective  purposes,  be 

mutually    the    same  with  each  other.      For   a  sign 

being  altogether  arbitrary,  if  it  had  pleased  God  to 

shadow  out  regeneration  by  a  hundred  different  signs, 

all  these    hundred  signs  would  still   continue    but  a 

single  sacrament."     See  Sermons,  vol.  1,  sermon  9. 

Dr.  Wardlow,   after   supposing   that  circumcision 

may  be  regarded,  as  a  sign  which  shows  the  promised 

"  seed  "  must  be  of  Abraham,  as  well  as  the  sign  of 

"  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  &c., 

says :  "If  U^is  be  well  founded,  we  at  once  perceive 

a  good  reason  why  circumcision  should  be  abolished 

when  this  seed  came ;  and  why  another  rite  should  be 

substituted  in  its  place,  which  continued  to  signify  as 

expressly,  or  more  so,  the  '  putting  off  the  body  of  the 

sins  of  the  flesh,'  while  it  was  not  all  significant  of 

that  part  of  the  meaning  of  the  former  symbol,  wliich 

had  now  received  its  fulfillment."     See  Dissertations 

oa  lufant  Baptism,  p,  28. 


66  TRACTS   FOR   THE   TIMES. 

Let  US  now  see  whether  Inspiration  affords  any 
foundation  for  the  language  of  Justin,  and  the  opinions 
and  deductions  of  these  authors.  It  speaks  thus, 
Col.  ii,  11,  12:  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting 
off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision 
of  Christ :  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  opera- 
tion of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 

The  circumcision  or  baptism  of  Christ  by  the  Spirit, 
in  cutting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  is 
actually  here  placed  in  contrast  with  the  knife  in 
cutting  off  the  foreskin ;  and  in  addition,  the  sub- 
jects are  said  to  be  raised  "  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  of  God" — not  by  the  action  of  a  man's 
arms,  which  would  have  been  the  case,  if  water 
baptism  by  immersion  had  been  the  point  wliich  the 
apostle  intended  to  express. 

The  paraphrase  given  of  this  testimony  of  St. 
Paul,  in  questions  ascribed  to  Justin  Martyr,  runs 
thus  :  "  Why,  if  circumcision  were  a  good  thing,  we 
do  not  use  it  as  well  as  the  Jews  did  ?"  The  answer 
is:  "We  are  circumcised  by  baptism  with  Christ's 
circumcision."      Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  QQ. 

Wall,  same  page,  says :  "  Only  he   [Paul]  as  well 


INPxVNT     BAPTISM.  07 

as  Justin,  refers  both  to  the  inward  and  outward  part 
of  baptism  ;  whereof  the  inward  part  is  done  without 
hands":  and  accordingly  the  ancients  were  wont  to 
call  baptism,  '  the  circumcision  done  without  hands.'  " 

The  only  difference  that  we  perceive  between  Paul 
and  Justin  is,  that  the  former  speaks  of  adults,  exhort- 
ing them  to  duties,  while  the  latter  speaks  of  all, 
declaring  that  it  is  necessary  they  should,  not  even 
excepting  an  infant,  receive  spiritual  circumcision  by 
baptism.  We  know,  and  warn  the  reader  against,  an 
absurd  advantage  that  may  be  taken  of  this  construc- 
tion ;  that  is,  "  Paul  does  not  speak  of  infants,  nor 
directly  apply  the  passage  to  them,  therefore  they  are 
excluded."  We  midit  as  well  argue  that  adults  are 
excluded,  because  the  Saviour  says,  suffer  the  children 
to  come  unto  me,  without  coupling  adults  with  them 
in  the  invitation.  The  Scriptures,  and  the  writings 
of  the  fathers,  abound  with  special  applications  of 
truths,  without  intending  the  idea  of  exclusion — heiico 
the  necessity  of  care  on  these  points.  Chapter  V. 
of  this  examination,  will  open  with  a  striking  example 
of  this,  in  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr,  on  disciple- 
ship,  and  regeneration  by  baptism. 

Having  made  it  evident  that  Justin  based  his  vie\\s 
on  inspiration,  and  maintained  the  necessity  of  infant 


68  TRACTS    FOB.    TRE    TIMES. 

baptism  under  the  idea  of  spiritual  cii'cumcision,  we 
shall  novr  proceed  to  show  the  general  sense  of  the 
primitive  state  of  the  Christian  Church  on  baptism 
and  circumcision. 

Dr.  Pond  says,  speaking  of  the  decision  of  the 
Council  of  Carthage,  253,  A.  D  :  "  The  question  of 
Fidus  to  Cyprian  and  the  Council  of  Carthage,  whether 
it  be  lawful  to  baptize  an  infant  sooner  than  the 
eighth  day,  necessarily  supposes  it  to  have  been  an 
established  opinion  that  baptism  had  come  in  the  place 
of  circumcision.  See  his  work  on  baptism,  p.  81. 
Ilere  we  learn  that  nearly  seventy  bishops  regarded 
baptism  as  taking  the  place  of  circumcision.  See  also 
Wali;  vol.  1,  p.  131. 

Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  370  A.  D.  speaking  of  the 
baptism  of  infants,  says  :  "And  for  this  practice  cir- 
cumcision, which  was  performed  on  the  eighth  day, 
affords  us  a  reason,  inasmuch  as  it  was  a  typical  seal, 
and  was  applied  to  those  destitute  of  the  use  of  rea- 
son."    See  Orat.  28. 

Basil,  370,  A.  D.  says  :  "  A  Jew  does  not  delay 
circumcision,  because  of  the  threatening  that  every 
soul  that  is  not  circumcised  the  eighth  day  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people :  and  dost  thou  put  off  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands  in  the  putting  off 


IXFAM     BAPTISM.  69 

the  flesh,  which  is  performed  in  baptism."  Wall,  vol. 
1,  p.  211. 

Ambrose,  o85,  A.  D.,  sajs:  "Both  the  home- 
born  and  the  foreigner,  the  just  and  the  sinful,  must 
be  circumcised  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  so  as 
not  to  practice  sin  any  more :  for  no  person  comes 
to  the  kingdom  of  heaven  but  by  the  sacrament  of 
baptism."     Ibid.,  223. 

Chrysostom,  387,  A.  D.,  says:  "But  our  circum- 
cision, I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism,  gives  cure  with- 
out pain,  and  procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and 
fills  us  with  the  grace  of  the  Spirit :  and  it  has  no 
determinate  time,  as  that  had ;  but  one  that  is  in  the 
very  beginning  of  his  age,  or  one  that  is  in  the  middle 
of  it,  or  one  that  is  in  old  age,  may  receive  this 
circumcision  made  without  hands."     Ibid.,  p.  228. 

Augustin,  400,  A.  D.,  says  :  "  Yet  we  may  besides 
take  a  true  estimate,  how  much  the  sacrament  of 
baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the  circumcision  which 
God's  former  people  received."     Ibid.,  p.  255. 

May  we  not  now  confidently  say  that  the  early 
Fathers  regarded  baptism  as  answering  the  same  pur- 
pose to  the  Christian  state  of  the  church,  relying  on 
the  evidence  before  us,  that  circumcision  did  to  the 
church   in   her  Jewish  state  ?     Truly,  we  not  only 


70  TRACTS   FOR   THE   TIMES. 

can  afford  to  say  this,  but  can  adopt  the  appropriate 
language  of  Flavel :  "  Cannot  baptism  stand  in  tlie 
place  of  circumcision,  because  it  answers  all  its  ends, 
with  an  advantage  ?"  Dr.  Pond  very  justly  says  :  "It 
will  be  observed  that  several  of  the  Fathers  speak  of 
baptism  (in  the  language  of  the  apostle,  Col.  ii,  11, 
12,)  as  the  circumcision  made  without  hands.  It  is 
evident  from  this,  that  they  understood  the  apostle, 
in  the  passage  referred  to,  as  teaching  the  substitution 
of  baptism  in  place  of  circumcision."  Pond,  p.  82. 
We  shall  close  these  remarks  and  facts  with  a  few 
necessary  reflections.  It  is  said  that  baptism  cannot 
be  substituted  for  circumcision,  for  the  simple  reason, 
that  the  latter  only  applies  to  males.  Dr.  Pond  fairly 
meets  this,  p.  83,  saying :  "  But  why  was  circum- 
cison  applied  to  none  but  males  ?  Not  because  of 
any  thing  in  its  internal  import,  which  rendered  it 
improper  that  it  should  be  administered  to  females ; 
for  these  were  included  in  the  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, and  were  really  of  the  circumcision,  as  much  as 
the  males.  No  uncircumcised  person  was  allowed  to 
partake  of  the  Passover ;  yet  females  partook  of  it  as 
well  as  males ;  (See  Luke  ii,  41)  which  shows  that 
though  they  bore  not  the  external  mark,  they  were 
regarded  as  of  the  circumcision.'" 


I.NFANT     BAPTISM.  71 

In  reference  to  the  objection  respecting  the  apostles 
"  tolerating  the  Jewish  converts  in  the  circumcision  of 
their  children,"  and  the  conclusion  from  it,  "  that  they 
could  not  have  acted  so,  and  at  the  same  time  looked 
on  baptism  as  a  substitute  for  circumcision,"  we  reply 
in  the  language  of  Dr.  Pond,  p.  83  :  "  As  the  import 
of  the  two  ordinances  was  the  same,  and  the  relation 
of  children  to  the  Church  was  intended  to  be  con- 
tinued, they  saw  no  inconsistency  in  yielding,  for  a 
time,  to  this  feeling  of  the  Jewish  converts.  But  this 
same  feehng  of  regard,  which  led  the  apostles  to  toler- 
ate circumcision,  would  prompt  them  not  to  say  a  word 
on  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  its  place."  In  short, 
we  are  fully  satisfied  that  the  immediate  successors  of 
the  apostles  looked  on  Baptism  as  taking  the  place  of 
circumcision,  having  for  its  object  similar  subjects. 

Dr.  Grant  says,  speaking  of  the  Nestorians  in  this 
particular:  "  On  the  eighth  day  the  child  may  be 
baptized,  as  the  Nestorians  are  of  the  opinion  that 
baptism  comes  in  the  place  of  circumcision."  See 
Bih.  Rep.,  :i Sin.  1842,  p.  77. 

So  much  for  infant  baptism  through  this  line  of 
proof.  Conscience,  we  thing,  if  partly  free  from  bias, 
will  find  it  an  easier  task  to  believe,  than  to  reject — 
the  proof  being  so  clear  and  unequivocal. 


TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 


TRACT   V. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 

THE  HISTORY  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  STATE  OF  THE  CHURCH  PROVES 
THAT  INFANT  BAPTISM  HAS  BEEN  PRACTICED  FROM  THE  DATS 
OF  THE  APOSTLES  UNTIL  NOW. 

We  are  now  ready,  having  prepared  the  minds  of 
our  readers  to  appreciate  and  feel  its  force,  to  hear 
the  plain  unbroken  testimony  of  the  history  of  the 
Christian  state  of  the  Church  on  infant  baptism. 

Clemens  Romanus,  68,  A.  D.,  is  thus  presented  by 
Bingham :  He  does  not  directly  mention  infant  bap- 
tism, yet  he  says  a  thing  that  by  consequence  proves 
it.  For  he  makes  infants  liable  to  original  sin,  which 
in  effect  is  to  say,  that  they  have  need  of  baptism  to 
purge  them  fi-om  it;  for  speaking  of  Job  he  says, 
"  though  he  was  a  just  man,  yet  he  condemns  himself 
saying  '  there  is  none  free  from  pollution  though  his 
life  be  but  the  length  of  one  day.' " — Sec  Bingham's 
Antiquities  Vol.  3,  p.  158. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  73 

Hermas,  70,  A.  D.,  is  thus  spoken  of  by  Bingham: 
"  He  makes  water  baptism  so  necessary  to  all,  that 
in  a  vision  he  represents  the  apostles  as  going  after 
death  to  baptize  the  holj  spirits,  who  lived  under 
the  old  Testament.  The  plain  design,"  savs  Bing- 
ham, "  is  to  represent  the  necessity  of  baptism,  with- 
out which  none  can  ordinarily  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God."     Ibid.,  pp.  158, 159. 

Hinton,  a  distinguished  Baptist  writer,  presents 
Hermas  as  stating :  "  Baptism  is  necessary  to  all." 
See  his  Hist,  of  Bap.,  p.  232,  Phil.  ed.  1840. 

Dr.  Pond,  as  quoted  by  Rev.  J.  T.  Hendrick,  rep- 
resents Hermas  as  testifying  thus:  "For  all  infanta 
are  in  honor  with  the  Lord,  and  are  esteemed  first 
of  all,"  and  "  the  baptism  of  water  is  necessary  to 
all."     See  Hendrick  on  Baptism,  p.  41,  ed.  1843. 

Dr.  Wall  gives  the  testimony  of  Hermas  thus  : 
"For  all  infants  are  valued  by  the  Lord,  and  esteemed 
the  first  of  all."  Wall  is  so  confident  on  this  point, 
that  he  declares:  "Now  I  say,  that  in  that  larger 
apphcation  infants  are  particularly  mentioned."  See 
Wall,  vol.  4,  p.  272. 

Surely  we  may  safely  say,  if  infants  are  esteemed 
the  first  of  all,  and  baptism  is  necessary  to  all,  this 
undeniable  truth  must  follow,  that  Hermas  sets  forth 
7 


74  TRACTS    FOR    THE   TIMES. 

the   doctrine    of   infant  baptism,    and   advocates   its 
necessity. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  Hermas,  a  brother  of  Pius, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  141,  A.  D.,  was  the  author  of  the 
doctrine  presented,  and  not  the  Hermas  named  above. 
We  shall  here  give,  because  of  this,  and  for  the  sake 
of  truth,  the  sum  of  all  that  can  be  brought  forward 
on  this  subject.  Irenaeus,  178,  A.  D.,  quotes  from  the 
writings  of  Hermas;  TertulUan,  200,  A.  I).,  praises 
them  when  orthodox  or  Catholic,  and  condemns  them 
when  a  Montanist ;  Origen,  216,  A.  D.,  in  his  Homily 
on  Romans  xvi,  14,  speaks  of  the  Hermas  there 
named,  as  the  author  of  the  work  in  dispute ;  and 
Eusebius,  325,  A.  D.,  testifies  thus :  "  But  as  the  same 
apostle  [Paul]  in  the  addresses  at  the  close  of  the 
epistle  to  the  Romans,  has  among  others  made  men- 
tion also  of  Hermas,  of  whom  they  say  we  have  the 
book  call  the  Pastor ;  it  should  be  observed  that  this 
too  is  disputed  by  some,  on  account  of  whom  it  is 
not  placed  among  those  of  acknowledged  authority. 
By  others,  however,  it  is  judged  most  necessary, 
especially  to  those  who  need  an  elementary  introduc- 
tion. Hence  we  know  that  it  has  already  been  in 
public  use  in  our  churches,  and  I  have  also  under- 
stood by  tradition,  that  some  of  the  most  ancient 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  75 

writers  have  made  use  of  it."  See  Emeb.  Eocles. 
Hist.^  book  3,  chap.  3.  p.  84,  New  York  ed.,  1842. 
Jerome,  390,  A.  D.,  applauds  it  at  one  time,  and  at 
another  pronounces  it  foolish  and  apocryphal.  Atha- 
nasius,  399,  A.  D.,  cites  it,  and  looks  on  it  as  a  most 
useful  work.  Mosheim  and  Archbishop  Wake, 
modern  writers,  think  that  the  Hermas  in  question 
was  a  brother  of  Pius,  who  was  bishop  of  Rome,  141, 
A.  D.  See  chap.  6,  and  10,  of  Mr.  Baker's  Review 
of  our  work  on  Baptism,  Ten.  Baptist,  1851 — also 
Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  Art.  Hermas. 
Hinton,  the  Baptist  writer  above  quoted,  takes 
Mosheim's  view  of  the  matter.  See  his  Hist,  of  Bap., 
p.  231.  Neander,  however,  in  his  Church  History,  pp. 
409,  410,  expresses  a  doubt  as  to  whether  the  work 
under  consideration  was  written  by  either  Hermas. 

NoAV,  in  view  of  the  evidence  before  us,  we  may 
venture  to  affirm,  that  the  work  of  Hermas  was  in 
existence  about  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  if 
not  sooner.  If  written  by  the  Hermas  first  mentioned, 
then  the  date  is  70  ;  but  if  written  by  the  brother  of 
Pius,  then  the  date  is  141.  But  the  testimony,  either 
way,  is  the  same,  and  of  equal  force.  It  is,  that 
"  baptism  is  necessary  to  all  " —  consequently  to 
infants,  —  they  making  a  portion  of  all. 


76  TllACIS   FOR    THE   TIMES. 

Justin  Martjr,  140,  A.  D.,  sajs  :  "  Several  per- 
sons among  us  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of 
both  sexes,  who  were  discipled  to  Christ  in,  or  from 
childhood,  do  continue  uncorrupted."  See  Wall,  vol. 
1,  p.  70.  Wall,  speaking  of  this  evidence  on  behalf 
of  infant  baptism,  says :  "  And  they  that  were 
seventy  years  old  at  this  time  must  have  been  made 
disciples  to  Christ  in  their  childhood,  (as  he  says  they 
were,)  about  thirty-six  years  after  the  ascension ; 
that  is,  in  the  midst  of  the  apostles'  times,  and 
within  twenty  years  after  St.  Matthew's  writing." 
Vol.  1,  p.  71. 

Bingham  says :  "  Another  ancient  writer,  who 
lived  within  the  compass  of  the  second  century,  was 
Justin  Martyr,  who  very  plainly  speaks  of  infant 
baptism  as  used  from  the  time  of  the  apostles." 
Again  :  "  Those  whom  he  speaks  of  as  baptized  sixty 
or  seventy  years  before  in  their  infancy  must  be 
persons  baptized  in  the  first  age,  while  some  of  the 
apostles  were  Hving."     Vol.  3,  p.  161. 

Justin  Martyr,  the  reader  will  please  keep  distinctly 
in  mind,  says :  "  Several  persons  among  us  of  sixty 
and  seventy  years  old  were  discipled  to  Christ  in 
childhood."  Now,  let  us  hear  what  Mr.  A.  Campbell, 
one  of  the  guiding  stars  of  Anti-Pedobaptists,  has  to 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  7T 

say  on  the  word  discipled :  "  No  man  could  be  said 
to  be  discipled  until  he  was  immersed" — baptized. 
See  Debate  between  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  373. 
Here  we  prove,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  that  the  children  of 
whom  Justin  speaks  were  made  disciples  by  baptism; 
for  he  plainly  declares  that  no  one  could  be  said  to  be 
discipled  until  he  was  baptized.  Nor  is  this  all.  Mr. 
Campbell,  please  inform  us  as  to  the  time  Justin  Mar- 
tyr said  that  certain  children  were  made  disciples  to 
Chiist ;  that  is,  in  your  sense,  by  baptism  ?  "  Justin 
Martyr  wrote  about  forty  years  after  John  the  apostle 
died,  and  stands  conspicuous  among  the  primitive 
Fathers."  See  his  Christian  System^  p.  231,  ed. 
1839.  Now,  by  taking  40  from  70  just  30  remain — 
hence,  according  to  the  showing  of  Mr.  Campbell, 
some  of  the  children,  of  whom  Justin  speaks,  were 
made  disciples  by  baptism  thirty  years  before  the 
death  of  the  apostle  John.  This  is  an  undeniable 
conclusion.  Its  force  only  can  be  broken  by  denying 
that  they  Avere  infants  or  children  in  our  sense ;  but 
we  are  perfectly  willing  to  submit  the  whole  to  the 
most  rigid  scrutiny.  Justin  says  :  "  Several  persons 
among  us  of  sixty  and  seventy  years  old,  of  both  sexes, 
who  were  discipled  to  Christ  in  childhood,  do  continue 
uncorrupted."     Mr.  Campbell  says  :  "  No  man  could 


78  Tii.\CTS  For.  THE  tijies. 

be  said  to  be  discipled  until  he  was  immersed" — bap- 
tized,— and,  that  Justin  wrote  about  forty  years  after 
the  death  of  John.  This,  however  viewed,  establishes 
the  doctrine  for  which  we  contend — the  discipleship  of 
children  or  infants  by  baptism  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 
In  this  connection  we  remark,  by  way  of  confirming 
what  precedes,  that  the  word  used  by  Justin,  to 
express  the  relation  of  children  or  infants  to  Christ, 
is  used  in  our  Lord's  commission.  Justin,  emathe- 
teuthesan — Matthew,  matheteusate.  Rev.  J.  T. 
Hendrick,  p.  20.  speaks  thus  in  reference  to  this: 
"  That  the  word  matJietiw,  here  rendered  to  teach, 
does  strictly  and  literally  mean,  as  the  margin  of  our 
English  Bibles  renders  it,  to  make  disciples  or 
Christians,  is  admitted  by  all  learned  men.  Dicken- 
son's New  Testament  renders  it  'Christianize' — Camp- 
bell, '  make  disciples ' — Wakefield,  '  disciple,  or  make 
disciples  '  —  Dwight,  '  make  disciples  '  —  Seabury, 
'  make  disciples,'  and  Dr. Wall,  in  his  reply  to  Dr.  Gale, 
has  abundantly  established  this  fact."  Rosenmuller 
not  only  agrees  with  these  authors,  but  contends  that 
the  word  "  may  be  understood  of  taking  into  the 
number  of  followers  of  Christ  infants,  who  are  after- 
wards to  be  instructed."  See  Bishop  Kenrick  on 
Baptism,  p.  129,  Phil.  ed.  1833. 


INFANT     LAPTISM.  79 

We  now  feel  authorized  to  say,  leaning  on  the 
evidence  adduced,  that  infants  or  children  were  made 
disciples  by  bajatism  in  the  days  of  the  apostles,  under 
the  sanction  of  the  commission  itself. 

In  opposition  to  all  this,  doubtless,  it  will  be  urged 
that  those  discipled  to  Christ,  or  made  disciples  to 
Christ,  by  baptism,  "  were  not  cliildren  or  infants  in  our 
sense,  but  such  as  were  capable  of  instruction." 
Well,  Matthew  informs  us,  i,  11  :  "And  when  they 
were  come  into  the  house,  they  saw  the  young  child 
with  Mary  his  mother,"  In  the  16th  verse  we  learn, 
that  Hei'od  slew  all  the  children  that  were  in  Bethle- 
hem, &c.,  "  from  two  years  old  and  under."  And  in 
the  18th  verse  we  read,  that  Rachel  wept  "  for  her 
children." 

If  Justin  used  the  term  as  did  Matthew,  then, 
indeed  were  children,  in  our  sense,  made  disciples 
by  baptism  in  his  day ;  and  so  we  proceed  to  hear 
Irenaeus. 

Irenaeus,  178,  A.  D.,  says :  "  For  he  [Christ]  came 
to  save  all  persons  by  himself:  all^  I  mean,  who  by 
him  are  regenerated  [or  baptized]  unto  God ;  infants 
and  little  ones,  and  children  and  youths,  and  elder 
j)erson3."  Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  72.  In  the  language  of 
^Vull  we  say  here  :    "  This  testimony,  which  reckons 


80  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

infants  among  those  that  are  regenerated,  is  plain  and 
full ;  provided  the  reader  be  one  that  is  satisfied  that 
the  word  regeneration  does,  in  the  usual  phrase  of 
those  times,  signify  baptism :  and  this  cannot  be 
doubted  by  any  that  are  at  all  acquainted  with  the 
books  of  those  ages."     Ibid.,  p.  73. 

In  plain  terms,  we  must  prove  that  the  phrase — 
regenerated  unto  God,  either  signifies  baptized  unto 
God,  or  regenerated  by  baptism  unto  God,  or  abandon 
Irenseus . 

Justin  Martyr,  after  speaking  of  some  acts  on  the 
part  of  adult  candidates  for  baptism,  says  ;  "  Then  we 
bring  them  to  some  place  where  there  is  water ;  and 
they  are  regenerated  by  the  same  way  of  regeneration 
by  which  we  were  regenerated  :  for  they  are  washed 
AN  ith  water  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord 
of  all  things,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit."  See  his  first  Apology  to  the 
Emperor  Antoninus  Pius,-  as  quoted  by  Wall,  vol.  1, 
page  67. 

We  shall  here  remark,  knowing  that  the  Anti- 
Pedobaptist  will  try  to  confound  the  sense  of  the 
Apologies  of  Justin,  that  we  are  convinced  the  words 
are  regenerated,  refer  to  adults,  persuaded  of  the 
truth;   and   the    words   tve?-e  regenerated,   refer    to 


,  INFANT     BAPTISM.  81 

those  that  were  discipled  to  Christ  by  baptism  in 
childhood  or  infancy.  This  is  self-evident.  The 
grammar  of  language  requires  the  distinction.  Dr. 
Carson,  a  prince  among  Anti-Pedobaptists,  says: 
"  Justin  Martyr  tells  us,  that  after  a  certain  process, 
the  candidates  were  led  by  the  Christians  to  a  place 
where  there  was  water,  and  were  regenerated  as  they 
themselves  had  been  regenerated.  The  persons 
baptized  were  regenerated  by  baptism."  Carson  con- 
tinues thus  :  "  Justin  then  tells  us  the  reason  why  he 
says  they  were  regenerated  by  baptism."  See  Car- 
son on  Baptism,  p.  469,  Phil,  ed.,  1844. 

Hinton,  Anti-Pedobaptist,  speaking  of  the  passage 
under  consideration  from  Justin,  says  :  "  This  passage 
indeed  appears  to  indicate  that  the  identification  of 
baptism  and  regeneration  was  gaining  ground  in  the 
time  of  Justin."  See  his  History  of  Baptism,  p.  239. 

In  a  work,  ascribed  to  Bardesanes,  and  spoken  of 
by  Origen  in  his  Philocalia, — date  about  150,  A.  D., 
we  are  thus  informed:  "  The  man  that  is  regenerated 
by  water,"  &c.  See  Bingham's  Antiquities,  vol.  3, 
p.  162.  The  word,  of  course,  is  used  in  this  passage 
in  reference  to  baptism. 

We  shall  now  hear  Irenseus  himself  on  the  word  at 
issue.     He  speaks  thus  :  "  Again,  Christ  confiding  to 


82  TRACTS    FOR   TliE    TIMES. 

his  disciples  the  authority  of  regeneration  to  God, 
said,  to  them — '  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,' "  &c.  See  Dr.  John 
P.  Campbell  on  Baptism,  p.   39,   second  ed.  1811. 

Again  he  says  :  "  The  baptism  of  regeneration  ;" 
that  is,  as  Carson  would  express  it,  the  regeneration 
by  baptism.  See  Mr.  Baker's  Review  of  our  first 
work   on   Baptism,  chap.  8. 

Mr.  A.  Campbell  says :  "  Suppose  I  admit  that  all 
the  Fathers,  from  Justin  Martyr  down  to  Theodoret, 
423,  used  baptism  and  regeneration  as  synonymous, 
and  Irenseus  generally  with  the  others,  Avhat  does  it 
prove  in  the  case  before  us  ?  That  infant  baptism  is  a 
divine  institution,  because  it  is  probable,  even  certain, 
that  Irenaeus  referred  to  it,  under  another  name." 
See  his  Debate  with  Rice,  p.  430.  He  not  only 
states  that  it  is  probably  Irenseu^  refers  to  baptism, 
but  even  certain — yes,  yes — even  certain. 

In  the  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowlege,  Art. 
Baptism,  we  are  thus  informed :  "  Irena^s,  who  wrote 
a  few  years  later  than  Justin,  says :  '  Christ  came  to 
save  all  persons  who  by  him  (renascimtur  in  Deimi) 
are  baptized  unto  God,  infants  and  little  ones,  and 
children,  and  youths,  and  elder  persons.'  That  he 
really  intended  to  express  baptism    by  this   word  is 


INFANT     EAPTISM.  83 

BO  evident  from  his  use  of  it  in  other  instances,  and 
from  the  general  usage  of  the  Fathers,  that  Dr.  Wall 
does  not  hesitate  to  speak  of  the  above  passage  as  an 
express  mention  of  baptized  infants." 

Dr.  Wall  says  of  Winston,  a  learned  Baptist, 
that  he  grants  it  to  be  undeniable,  "  that  the  word 
regeneration  is  generally,  if  not  constantly,  used 
with  relation  to  baptismal  regeneration."  Wall 
adds :  "  And  it  is  indeed,  as  he  says,  a  thing 
undeniable  by  any  modest  arguer.  He  grants  the 
place  to  speak  of  the  baptism  of  infants."  Wall, 
vol.  4,  p.  50. 

Bingham  says  :  "  No  art  can  elude  this  passage,  so 
long  as  it  is  owned  that  regeneration  means  baptism. 
And  for  this  we  have  the  application  of  Irenseus  him- 
self, who  calls  baptism  by  the  name  of  regeneration ; 
and  so  all  the  ancients  commonly  do.' "  See  Bing- 
ham's Antiquities,  vol.  3,  p.  164. 

Having  proved  by  Justin,  Bardesenes,  and  Irenaeus 
himself,  that  the  word  regeneration  was  then  used  to 
express  baptism,  or,  if  any  should  prefer  a  different 
form  of  speech,  the  effect  of  baptism,  we  shall  now 
bring  forward  a  few  of  the  Fathers  that  followed — 
knowing  that  their  testimony  will  place  this  point 
beyond  the  reach  of  contradiction." 


84  TRACTS    FUR    THE    TIMES. 

Theophilus,  182,  A.  D.,  says  :  "  Are  regenerated." 
Again  :  "  The  laver  of  regeneration."  See  Faith  of 
Catholics,  vol.  2,  p.  116,  London  ed.,  1846. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  190,  A.  D.,  says  :  "  Being 
baptized,  we  are  enlightened,"  &c.  "  Thus,  only  to 
have  believed,  and  to  have  been  regenerated  is  per- 
fection in  life."  Ibid.,  pp.  116, 117.  Wall  presents 
him  as  speaking  thus :  "  Was  Christ  as  soon  as  he 
was  regenerated  perfect  ?"  Again :  "  He  that  is 
once  regenerated."  Vol.  1,  p.  83.  Wall  justly 
observes,  after  citing  these,  and  other  examples : 
"  Here  the  words  baptized  and  regenerated,  are  all 
along  used  promiscuously.  Clement  says  expressly, 
the  word  regeneration  is  the  name  for  baptism." 
Ibid.,  p.  83. 

Hipholytus,  222,  A.  D,,  speaking  of  trine  immer- 
sion, three  dips  of  the  head — the  single  dip  not  then 
being  in  use,  says  :  "  And  if  after  the  regeneration  of 
the  baptismal  pool."  See  Faith  of  Catholics,  vol.  2, 
page  119. 

Basil,  370,  A.  D.  says :  "  But  as  I  am  about  to 
treat  of  spiritual  regeneration ;"  that  is,  to  use  the 
language  of  Carson,  spiritual  regeneration  by  bap- 
tism. Bishop  Kenrick  says,  giving  the  sense  of 
regeneration  here  —  "  baptism  ;"  still,  we  prefer  Car- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  85 

son's  form  of  speech.  See  the  Bishop's  Treatise  on 
Baptism,  p.  225.  Basil  speaks  thus  in  the  same  dis- 
course :  "  Baptism  is  the  ransom  of  captives,  the 
death  of  sin,  the  regeneration  of  the  soul."  Ibid., 
page  233. 

St.  Ambrose,  385,  A.  D.,  says  "  There  is  no 
regeneration  without  water."  This  needs  no  com- 
ment, it  speaks  for  itself.     Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  78. 

Here  we  make  a  full  pause,  seeing  we  have  the 
united  testimony  of  the  Fathers  to  show  that  the  word 
regenerated,  as  used  by  Irenaeus,  is  expressive  of 
Baptism.  Mr.  A.  Campbell  is  of  the  same  opinion ; 
for  he  thus  sets  forth  his  persuasion  addressing  Wall : 
"  Did  all  the  Christians,  public  and  private,  and  all 
the  Christian  writers  from  Barnabas  to  the  time  of 
Pelagius,  419,  as  far  as  you  know,  continue  to  use  the 
term  regenerate  as  only  applicable  to  immersion," — 
baptism  ?  "  Wall,  '  The  Christians  did  in  all  ancient 
times,  continue  the  use  of  this  name  regeneration  for 
baptism.'  "     See  his  Christian  System,  p.  230. 

Now,  in  view  of  all  the  convincing  facts  and  opin- 
ions that  are  before  us  on  the  word  regeneration,  we 
may  safely  say  that  the  exact  sense  of  Irengeus  nius 
thus :  "  For  he  [Christ]  came  to  save  all  persons  by 
himself;  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are  baptized  unto 


86  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TJMES. 

God  ;  infants  and  little  ones,  and  children  and  3'-outh3, 
and  elder  persons ;"  or,  "  For  ho  came  to  save  all 
persons  bj  himself:  all,  I  mean,  who  by  him  are 
regenerated  by  baptism  unto  God  ;  infants,"  &c. 

In  disposing  of  IrenjEus,  we  deem  it  of  more  than 
ordinary  interest  to  state  that  his  instructor,  Poly  car]), 
was  a  disciple  of  John ;  and  that  he  was,  according  to 
Dodwell,  born  a  few  years  before  the  death  of  John  ; 
hence,  he  was  well  prepared  to  give  to  the  world  the 
great  truth,  that  infants  in  his  day  were  regenerated, 
baptized,  or  regenerated  by  baptism  unto  God.  This 
is  the  true  sense  of  this  distinguished  father ;  and  he 
that  resists  it,  resists  truth.  See  Dr.  John  P.  Camp- 
bell on  Baptism,  p.  39,  also  Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  79. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  190,  A.  D.,  says,  "  x\nd  if 
any  one  be  by  trade  a  fisherman,  he  will  do  well  to 
think  of  an  apostle  and  the  children  taken  out  of  the 
water."  See  Hinton's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  244.  To 
meet  this  Hinton  says,  "  The  term  [children]  used 
may  as  well  apply  to  youths  from  twelve  to  twenty 
years  as  to  babes."  Ibid.,  p.  245.  Truly  if  he  had 
said  that  they  were  baptized  infants  ;  then,  indeed,  he 
would  have  hit  the  mark  of  truth  ;  but,  on  account  of 
the  hberal  indulgence  of  his  Anti-Pedobaptist  fancy, 
we  are  compelled  to  state  that  he  most  signally  missed 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  87 

it.  For  the  sake  of  illustration,  we  remark  here  that 
Anti-Pedobaptists  ask  us  to  show  one  passage  in  the 
scripture  that  speaks  of  baptism  of  children.  Now, 
when  we  turn  their  attention  to  the  fact,  that  the 
apostoHc  fathers  so  speak,  they  at  once  magnify 
children  into  "youth  from  twelve  to  twenty."  Here 
then  Ave  see  that,  if  every  chapter  in  scripture  could 
be  named  as  so  speaking,  we  would  be  gravely  told, 
"  These  baptized  children  are  not  infants  in  our  sense, 
but  youths  from  twelve  to  twenty."  What  a  subter- 
fuge, to  avoid  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers  on 
infant  baptism ! 

Holland,  rector  of  Sutton,  Wiltshire,  and  Dr.  Jen- 
kins, master  of  St.  John's  College,  Cambridge,  regard 
the  testimony  of  Clement  as  proving  infant  baptism 
by  the  apostle.     See  Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  84. 

Wall,  after  examining  the  full  testimony  of  Clement, 
says,  "  Clement's  advising  the  emblem  of  an  apostle 
baptizing  an  infant,  to  be  used  by  the  Christians  in 
his  time,  (about  ninety  years  after  the  apostles)  for 
the  sculpture  of  their  seals,  does  suppose  it  commonly 
known  by  them  that  the  apostles  did  perform  that 
office."     Ibid.,  p.  85. 

Tertullian,  200,  A.  D.,  says,  "  Therefore,  according 
to  the  condition  and  disposition,  and  even  age  of  each 


88  TRACTS   FOR    TUE   TIMES. 

one,  the  delay  of  baptism  is  more  useful,  particularly 
■with  regard  to  children.  For  what  necessity  is  there 
unless  it  be  altogether  necessary^  that  their  sponsors 
should  be  even  involved  in  danger,  who  themselves 
dying,  may  leave  their  promises  unaccomplished,  and 
may  be  deceived  by  the  event  of  a  perverse  disposition. 
The  Lord  indeed  says,  '  Forbid  theyn  not  to  come  to 
me.'' "  After  some  remarks  on  the  caution  to  be 
used  he  observes,  "  For  no  less  reason  the  unmarried 
should  also  be  delayed,  in  whom  temptation  is  ready  '■> 
for  virgins,  on  account  of  their  maturity  ;  for  widows, 
on  account  of  their  wandering  until  they  are  married, 
or  fortified  in  continence.  Those  who  understand  the 
importance  of  baptism,  will  fear  rather  its  reception 
than  its  delay."  Bishop  Kenrick,  from  whom  this 
quotation  is  taken,  justly  states,  "  Tertullian  avowed 
the  practice,  [infant  baptism,]  whilst  following  the 
natural  severity  of  his  disposition,  he  endeavored  to 
modify  it  by  suggesting  that  the  children  of  unbe- 
lievers should  not  be  admitted  to  baptism  until  they 
were  instructed  in  the  Christian  mysteries,  lest  they 
might  prove  recreant  to  the  engagements  made  in 
their  names  by  their  sponsors."  See  his  Treatise  on 
Baptism,  pp.  140,  141.  Stephen  Marshall,  1646, 
says,  "But  before  we  part  with  Tertullian,  give  mc 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  89 

leave  to  ask  the  question,  whether  the  dissuasion  may 
not  reasonably  be  interpreted  of  the  infants  of  infidels, 
because  in  that  chapter,  TertuUian  speaks  of  the 
baptism  of  such  as  were  not  born  of  Christian  parents." 
Quoted  bj  Bishop  Kenrick,  p.  141.  Hinton,  Baptist, 
says,  "  What  TertuUian  with  great  propriety  urges  is, 
that  while  these  children,  who  were  probably  taken 
from  benevolence  from  parents  who  were  pagans, 
should  receive  Christian  instruction."  See  his  Hist. 
of  Baptism,  p.  249. 

But  all  this  will  fail  to  convince  some  of  the  Anti- 
Pedobaptists  of  our  age  that  infants  were  the  subjects 
of  his  reflections.  Their  idea  is,  "  That  it  was  the 
baptism  of  very  young  children,  and  not  of  babes, 
that  TertuUian  alluded  to."  So  speaks  Hinton,  p.  250. 
tliis  is  somewhat  amusing.  The  children  spoken  of  by 
Clement  of  Alexandria  are  magnified  into  "  youths 
from  twelve  to  twenty  years,"  while  those  mentioned 
by  TertuUian  are  reduced  down,  to  use  the  adopted 
language  of  Hinton,  to  a  period  "  when  just  able  to 
ask  "  for  baptism.  What  maneuvering  to  ward  off  the 
force  of  truth ! 

The    understanding   of    TertuUian,   however,   will 
appear  exactly  thus  to  every  impartial  mind :   that 
infants,  whether  of  heathen  or  Christian  descent,  and 
8 


90  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIxMES. 

unmarried  persons,  by  reason  of  future  temptation, 
might  violate  their  baptismal  engagements ;  hence,  he 
recommends  a  delay  of  baptism  to  all  such,  deeming 
the  administration  of  it,  beyond  the  greatest  danger, 
the  most  advantageous  time  ;  but  in  case  of  approach- 
ing death  he  commends  baptism  to  all,  irrespective  of 
age,  saying,  in  reference  to  him  that  should  omit  to 
baptize  at  a  time  so  critical,  "  He  must  be  held  guilty 
of  the  loss  of  a  human  soul,  who  omits  to  do  what  ho 
might  have  freely  performed."  See  De  Bapt.  c.  17. 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  and  such  his  view 
of  the  neglect  of  baptism. 

Now  who,  in  his  sober  sense,  would  argue  that 
children  were  not  baptized  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
because  Tertullian  advises  a  delay  in  cases  where  they 
are  specified  with  some  adults  to  whom  he  objects  ?" 
Add  to  this,  that  it  is  probable  heathen  children,  not 
the  ^'■lioly  seed,^^  are  the  only  ones  intended,  and  the 
wonder,  at  such  an  enterprise,  will  be  much  increased. 
Verily,  we  might  as  well  argue  that  all  unmarried 
persons,  of  the  classes  he  names,  were  not  then  bap- 
tized, because  he  advises  such  to  delay  their  baptism. 
Tertullian,  without  doubt,  was  a  Pedobaptist — must 
be  placed  above  the  strictest  one  of  this  age  in  case 
of  death ;  for,  as  Bishop  Kenrick  truly  states,  p.  142 : 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  91 

"  He  expressly  directs  that  laymen  should  baptize  in 
case  of  extreme  necessity,  lest  the  infant  be  deprived 
of  life  eternal." 

In  Hinton's  Hist,  of  Baptism,  p.  224,  we  read: 
"  Winer,  in  his  Lectur  ,  says  :  '  Tertullian  is  the  first 
that  mentions  it  [infant  baptism.]'"  Of  a  truth,  it 
was  then  practiced  ;  for  he  could  not  have  mentioned 
that  which  was  unknown  to  fact.  This  is  how  things 
work  when  fairly  viewed.  This  is  the  conclusion  that 
an  Anti-Pedobaptist  affords. 

The  following  considerations,  however,  will  give  a 
legitimate  edge  to  TertuUian's  testimony  on  the  sub- 
ject. He  was  born  at  Carthage  about  IGO,  A.  D., 
and  flourished  as  a  writer  200.  The  apostle  John 
died  about  the  year  100.  Now,  from  this  aspect  of 
matters,  we  see  that  he  was  born  sixty  years  after  the 
death  of  John,  and  wrote  at  the  age  of  forty.  In  view 
of  this  we  remark,  that  men  of  seventy  could  have 
told  him,  when  he  was  a  youth,  what  John  said  con- 
cerning infant  baptism ;  and  thus  informed,  he  could 
have  presented  what  men  that  talked  to  an  apostle 
said :  but  as  he  did  not  appeal  to  this  quarter,  nor 
give  any  previous  evidence  of  the  Church  against  it, 
we  are  forced  to  come  to  this  conclusion,  that  he 
knew  it  had  been  practiced  back  to  the  apostles  ;  for. 


92  TRACT3    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

circumstanced  as  we  now  see  he  was,  one  thing  is 
self-evident,  that  he  could  have  at  once  detected  an 
innovation  by  it,  on  the  usage  of  the  Church,  at  any 
period  between  himself  and  the  apostles.  But  when 
we  add  to  these  considerations  the  thought,  that  he 
wrote  twenty-two  years  after  Irenseus,  and  sixty  after 
Justin,  the  lover  of  truth  may  well  ask,  "  who  is  so 
blind  as  he  that  will  not  perceive,  and  so  unreasonable 
as  he  that  will  not  yield  to  fact  and  reason  ?" 

We  have  particularly  examined  the  testimony  of 
Tertullian,  because  much  depends  on  it.  This  is  our 
apology  to  the  reader. 

Origen,  216,  A.  D.,  says;  "For  this  also  it  was, 
that  the  Church  had  from  the  apostles  a  tradition  [or 
order]  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants."  Wall,  vol. 
1,  p.  106.  The  word  tradition  gives  point  and  force 
to  this  testimony ;  for,  when  we  turn  to  second 
Thessalonians,  second  chap.,  fifteenth  verse,  we  read: 
"  Stand  fast  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have 
been  taught,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle."  May 
we  not,  in  view  of  this  passage,  conclude  that  the 
tradition  of  which  Origen  speaks,  was  one  of  these  ? 
In  addition  to  this  thought  we  remark,  that  as  he  had 
preached  the  gospel  in  Rome,  Greece,  Palestine,  and 
Syria,  no  person,  in  his  day,  was  better  qualified  to 


IXFAXT     BAPTISM.  93 

give  to  the  world  the  general  usage  of  the  church 
back  to  the  apostles,  and  this  he  most  unequivocally 
gave,  by  stating,  that  the  church  had  a  tradition  or 
order  from  the  apostles  to  give  baptism  to  infants. 
This  settles  the  matter,  unless  Anti  Pedobaptists  can 
magnify  "  infants "  into  "  youths  from  twelve  to 
twenty" — following  up  Hinton.  We  presume,  how- 
ever, that  every  honest  mmd  will  come  to  this 
conclusion,  that  Origen  spoke  of  infants,  as  now 
understood,  and  also  of  their  baptism  as  having  apos- 
tolic sanctions ;  and,  that  it  was  impossible  for  him 
to  have  been  deceived  on  this  point. 

Dr.  John  P.  Campbell  says  :  "  What  gives  immense 
weight  to  Origen's  testimony  is,  that  he  was,  as  Euse- 
bius  reports,  descended  from  a  family  that  had  been 
Christians  for  several  generations.  His  father,  Leon- 
tine,  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  year  102  after  the 
apostles,  at  which  time  Origen  was  about  seventeen 
years  old.  This  circumstance  places  the  birth  of 
Origen  in  the  eighty-fifth  year  after  the  apostles,  and 
makes  it  manifest  that  he  could  have  learned  from  his 
father,  or  at  most,  from  his  grandfather,  who  lived  in 
the  age  of  the  apostles,  what  their  practice,  as  well  as 
the  intermediate  practice  of  the  church,  had  really 
been." — See  his  work  on  Baptism,  p.  42. 


94  TRACTS    FOR  THE   TIMES. 

Origen  wrote  tliirtj-eight  years  after  Irenceus.  This 
consideration  will  lead  us  at  once  to  see  that  it  is  tho 
cream  of  folly  to  deny  infant  baptism  in  the  time  of 
Irenseus,  in  any  sense  or  form :  inasmuch  as  Origen's 
knowledge  directly  carried  him  there,  and  tradition  to 
the  apostles.  See  Chronological  Table,  Faith  of 
Catholics,  London  ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  451. 

Cyprian  and  the  Council  of  Carthage,  253,  next 
claim  our  attention. 

Fidus,  an  African  Bishop,  applied  to  Cyprian, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  to  know  whether  the  baptism  of 
infants  ought  to  take  place  before  the  eighth  day  after 
their  birth,  believing  that  baptism  took  the  place  of 
circumcision.  This  question  was  duly  considered  by  a 
venerable  Synod  composed  of  sixty-six  Bishops,  Cyprian 
presiding,  and  the  following  verdict  returned ;  "  But 
with  respect  to  the  case  of  infants,  which  as  you  stated 
should  not  be  baptized  within  the  second  or  third 
day  after  their  birth,  and  as  to  what  you  would  also 
suggest,  that  the  rule  of  the  ancient  circumcision  is  to 
be  observed,  requiring  that  none  is  to  be  baptized  and 
sanctified  earlier  than  the  eighth  day  after  nativity,  it 
has  appeared  far  otherwise  to  us  all  in  our  council.*  *  * 
*  *  Therefore,  very  dear  brother,  this  has  been  our 
decision  in  council,  that  from  baptism  and  the  grace 


INFAJS'T     LAl'TISM.  95 

of  God  who  is  merciful,  beaign  and  affectionate  to  all, 
no  person  is  to  be  excluded  bj  us.  Which  rule,  as  it 
ought  to  be  regarded  and  attended  to  with  respect  to 
men,  universally  should,  as  we  apprehend,  be  more 
especially  observed  in  reference  to  mere  infants,  and 
to  those  too  who  are  just  born."  See  Dr.  John  P. 
Campbell  on  Baptism,  p  45. 

Lord  King  speaks  thus  of  this  decision:  "Here  is 
as  formal  a  synodical  decree  for  the  baptism  of  infants 
as  possibly  can  be  effected  ;  which,  being  the  judgment 
of  a  synod,  is  more  authentic  and  cogent  than  that  of 
a  private  father,  it  being  supposable  that  a  private 
father  might  write  his  own  particular  judgment  and 
opinion,  but  the  determinations  of  a  synod  or  council 
denote  the  common  practice  and  usage  of  the  whole 
Church."  See  his  Primitive  Church,  chap.  3,  pp. 
202,  203,  New  York,  1841. 

Milner  says :  "  Here  is  an  assembly  of  sixty-six 
pastors,  men  of  approved  fidelity  and  gravity,  who  had 
stood  the  fiery  trial  of  some  of  the  severest  persecutions 
ever  known  ;  who  had  testified  their  love  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  in  a  more  strikmg  manner  than  any  Anti- 
Pedobaptists  have  had  an  opportunity  of  doing  in  our 
days ;  and  who  seem  not  to  be  wanting  in  any  fun- 
damental of  godliness.     Before  this  assembly  a  ques- 


96  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

tion  is  brought,  not  whether  infants  should  be  baptized 
—  none  contradicted  this  —  but  whether  they  should 
be  baptized  immediately,  or  on  the  eighth  day.  To  a 
man  they  determine  to  baptize  them  immediately. 
Let  the  reader  consider."  Ecc.  Hist..,  vol.  1,  p.  402) 
as  quoted  by  Dr.  Pond,  p.  104. 

Pray,  if  infant  baptism  had  not  always  been  the 
universal  practice  of  the  church,  how  came  so  many 
bishops,  so  near  the  apostles,  to  think  it  had,  and  to 
act  accordingly  ?  They  could  not  have  been  deceived 
in  this  subject. 

We  shall  now  give,  on  account  of  its  appropriate 
force,  the  opinion  of  Gale  on  the  point  at  issue,  who, 
though  an  Anti-Pedobaptist ,  says:  "I  will  grant  it 
probable  that  what  all  or  most  of  the  churches  practiced 
immediately  after  the  apostles'  times,  had  been  ap- 
pointed a  practice  by  the  apostles  themselves,  —  for  it 
is  hardly  to  be  imagined  that  any  considerable  body 
of  these  ancient  Christians,  and  much  less  that  the 
whole,  should  so  soon  deviate  from  the  customs  and 
injunctions  of  their  venerable  founders,  whose  authority 
they  held  so  sacred."  Quoted  from  Hendrick  on 
ba])tism,  p.  51  This  is  a  just  conclusion,  and  we 
recommend  it  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  all  Baptists. 

Optatus,  3G8,  A.  D.,  says,  quoting  from  the  New 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  97 

Testament:  "As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
in  the  name  of  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  "  0  what 
a  garment,"  he  says,  "  is  this,  that  is  always  one,  and 
never  renewed ;  that  decently  fits  all  ages  and  all 
forms :  it  is  neither  plaited  for  infants,  nor  stretched 
for  men,  and  without  alteration  is  suitable  to  women." 
See  Hibbard  on  Baptism,  p.  202,  New  York  ed.,  1843. 
Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  162,  says  :  "  This  needs  no  note."  So 
say  we,  adding,  that  Optatus  turns  our  thoughts  to 
infant  baptism  in  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Tliis  is  a 
portion  of  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  quotation. 

But  in  order  to  show  the  reader  the  errors  into 
which  Anti-Pedobaptists  run  on  the  subject  of  the  age 
of  the  baptized  children  mentioned  by  the  Fathers,  and 
to  keep  the  testimony  of  Optatus  from  being  blunted 
by  raising  doubts  on  this  point,  we  shall  here  insert  a 
few  inscriptions  from  the  tombs  of  the  dead,  which 
cannot  be  perverted  or  misconstrued. 

This,  the  first,  is  as  afiecting  as  striking :  "  To 
Nina  Florentina,  a  most  sweet  and  innocent  infant, 
MADE  A  FAITHFUL  by  her  parent,  placed  with  her  in  a 
country  seclusion.  She  Vt^as  born  the  first  of  the 
nones  of  INIarch,  before  day-light,  daughter  of  Zoilua 
the  Corrector:  having  completed  eighteen  months 
and  twenty-two  days,  she  was  again  made  a  faithful 


98  TRACTS   FOR    THE   TIMES. 

at  the  eighth  hour  of  the  night,  at  the  last  extremity 
of  life  ;  she  lived  afterwards  but  four  hours ;  the  rite 
having  been  performed  according  to  custom,  she  died 
at  Hybla,  the  first  hour  of  the  day,  the  seventh  of  the 
calends  of  October ;  on  which  decease  her  parents 
wept  with  each  other  every  moment  of  the  night : 
open  lamentations  for  the  Christian  dead  being  pro- 
hibited as  treason.  Her  corpse,  with  its  coffin,  by  the 
presbyters,  was  interred  in  the  burying-place  of 
the  Christian  martyrs ;  the  fourth  of  the  nones  of 
October."  See  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baptism,  New 
York  ed.,  1844,  p.  145. 

Taylor,  same  page,  says,  "  Correctors  are  mentioned 
as  early  as  A.  D.,  117,"  and  looks  to  this  inscription 
for  proof. 

The  sense  runs  thus :  the  mother  has  the  child 
imperfectly  baptized  in  a  country  seclusion,  but  when 
the  trying  hour  of  death  appears,  it  is  properly 
baptized  under  the  approval  of  the  father  as  well  as 
the  mother,  and  recorded  a  Faithful.  The  word 
Faithful  was  then  commonly  used  to  designate  a 
baptized  child ;  hence,  it  is  to  be  so  understood  in  the 
case  before  us. 

The  following  inscriptions  will  illustrate,  and  justify, 
this  exposition. 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  99 

"  Cyriacus  a  Faithful^  died  aged  eight  days  less 
than  three  years." 

"  Eustafia  the  mother,  places  this  in  commemoration 
of  her  son  Polichronis,  a  Faithful  -who  lived  three 
years." 

"  Urcia  Florentina  a  Faithful^  rests  here  in  peace. 
She  lived  five  years,  eight  months,  and  eight  days." 

"  Ruffillo,  neivly  baptized,  who  lived  two  years  and 
forty  days.  Quintillian  the  father  places  this  to  the 
memory  of  his  son  who  sleeps  in  the  peace  of  Christ." 

"  To  Domitius,  an  innocent,  newly  baptized,  who 
lived  three  years  and  thirty  days." 

"  Valerius  Decentius  the  father  places  this  to  his 
son,  7ieivly  baptized,  who  lived  three  years,  ten  months, 
and  fifteen  days." 

"  To  Pisentus,  an  innocent  soul,  who  lived  one  year, 
eight  months,  and  thirteen  days,  newly  baptized,  buried 
on  the  ides  of  September  in  peace."  Ibid.,  pp.  106, 108. 

To  use  the  language  of  Taylor,  "  Hundreds  of 
thousands  of  Christian  children  died  in  infancy,  whose 
graves  were  not  marked  by  a  single  inscription,  and 
of  those  that  were  so  marked,  not  one  in  a  thousand 
has  come  down  to  us."     Ibid.,  p.  111. 

Anti-Pedobaptists  cannot  magnify  these  children 
into  youths  from  twelve  to  twenty  ?" 


100  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

A  few  appropriate  reflections,  however,  will  not  be 
out  of  place  here.  There  is  one  thing  certain,  that  the 
term  faithful,  as  found  in  the  first  verse  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Ephesians,  is  expressive  of  church  member- 
ship ;  yet  we  would  not  venture  to  say  that  it  is  put 
in  contrast  with  the  term  saints,  as  found  in  the  same 
verse ;  the  latter  signifying  adults,  and  the  former 
children,  such  as  are  spoken  of  in  the  sixth  chapter. 
But  this  much  we  can  safely  say,  that  the  apostle 
makes  a  difference,  whatever  it  may  be,  and  that  the 
Fathers  applied  the  vford  faithful  to  baptized  children. 
Taylor,  p.  107,  gives  us  this  proof  of  what  we  have 
just  asserted,  stating,  "  One  inscription  will  prove 
that  the  term  faithful  was  continued  and  applied  to 
children  during  several  centuries  :  '  Here  Ues  Maria, 
daughter  of  John,  who  was  of  the  town  of  Nicerata ; 
she  Hved  three  years,  three  months  and  a  half,  a 
Faithful.  She  died  the  fourth  day  of  the  Canticus ; 
under  the  consulate  of  the  Princes  Honorius  II,  and 
Constantine  II.' " 

"  The  Church  in  the  family  of  Priscilla  and  Aquilla, 
Rom.  xvi.  3,  5,  is  spoken  of,"  says  Taylor,  p.  105, 
"by  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  and  Theophylact,  who 
say  literally,  '  Their  family  was  all  7nade  Faithfuls; 
and  such  whole  families  the  apostle  calls  a  church." 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  101 

The  word  holy  we  find  thus  in  1  Cor.,  vii,  14; 
*'  Now  are  thej  [children]  holj."  Members  of  the 
church  are  called  holy.  See  Ephesians  i,  4.  The 
following  examples  will  show  that  the  fathers  applied 
the  word  holy  to  designate  baptized  children.  "  Mau- 
rentius,  son  of  Maurentia,  a  most  pleasing  child,  who 
lived  five  years,  eleven  months,  and  two  days  ;  worthy 
to  repose  in  peace  among  the  holy  persons." 

"  Sacred  to  the  great  God.  Leopardus  rests  here 
in  peace  with  Iwly  spirits.  Having  received  baptism 
he  went  to  the  blessed  innocents.  This  was  placed 
by  his  parents,  with  whom  he  lived  seven  years  and 
seven  months."  Fabretti  refers  this  expressly  to 
baptism.  See  Taylor's  Apostolic  Baptism,  pp.  101, 
102.  Such  is  the  evidence  in  favor  of  infant  baptism 
in  this  department  of  history.  It  reaches  the  very 
age  and  applies  terms  in  a  manner  that  cannot  be 
mistaken. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  370,  A.  D.,  says,  "And  was 
not  this  man  [Basil]  consecrated  to  God  in  his  infancy 
from  the  womb,  and  carried  to  the  steps  [or  font]  in 
a  coat?"  Wall  speaks  respecting  this  testimony 
thus :  "  But  the  coat  in  which  he  says  Basil  was 
offered  to  God,  cannot  well  be  supposed  to  have  been 
any  thing  but  the  albs  used  at  bajitism."     Wall,  vol. 


102  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

1,  p.  167.  Again,  Gregory  says,  "  What  say  you  to 
those  that  are  yet  infants,  and  are  not  in  capacity  to 
be  sensible  either  of  the  grace  or  the  miss  of  it  ? 
Shall  we  baptize  them  too  ?  Yes,  by  all  means,"  &c. 
Ibid.,  p.  177. 

Ambrose,  385,  A.  D.,  says,  referring  to  Christ's 
statement  to  Nicodemus :  "  You  see  he  excepts  no 
person,  not  an  infant."  Again,  "  Those  infants  that 
are  baptized  are  reformed  back  again  from  wicked- 
ness."    Ibid.,  pp.  221,  225. 

Chrysostom,  387,  A.  D.,  says,  "For  this  cause  we 
baptize  infants  also."     Ibid.,  p.  232. 

Jerome,  390,  A.  D.,  says,  "  To  correct  certain 
persons  who  alleged  that  an  infant  should  not  be 
baptized  before  the  eighth  day,  blessed  Cyprian  with 
a  number  of  associate  bishops,  decreed  that  an  infant 
could,  with  propriety,  be  baptized  immediately  after 
the  birth,  not  thereby  forming  a  new  canon,  but 
observing  the  most  firmly  established  usage  of  the 
Church."  See  Oper,  Tom.  9,  p.  164,  quoted  by  Dr. 
John  P.  Campbell,  p.  44.  Jerome,  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive, declares  that  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Car- 
thage was  not  a  new  thing,  but  a  reiteration  of  the 
general  usage  of  the  Church.  Moreover,  if  we  want 
to  be  satisfied  that  Jerome  tauirht  the  sin  of  omittinu; 


INFANT     BAPTISil.  103 

baptism  In  case  of  Infants  was  placed  to  the  account 
of  parents,  see  Campbell's  Debate  with  Rice,  p.  403. 
Paulinas,  395,  A.  D.  says  : 

"  The  priest  from  the  holy  font  does  infants  brin^, 
In  body,  in  soul,  in  garments  white  and  clean." 

Wall,  vol.  1,  jD.  337. 

Council  of  Carthage,  397,  says,  "  In  reference  to 
the  Donatists,  it  is  resolved  that  we  do  ask  the  advice 
of  our  brethren  and  fellow  bishops,  Siricius  and  Sim- 
plicianus,  concerning  those  only  who  are  in  infancy 
baptized  among  them,"  &c.  Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  309. 
The  Donatists  were  x\nabaptists  and  Pedobaptists ; 
that  is,  they  "  baptized  "  those  "  anew  "  that  joined 
them  from  the  Catholics,  though  baptized  in  infancv, 
and  at  the  same  time  baptized  their  own  children,  as 
the  above  quotation  shows.     Ibid.,  p.  308. 

The  sound  of  the  term  Anabaptists  has  led  Baptists 
of  our  age  to  suppose  that  the  Donatists  were  opposed 
to  infant  baptism.     A  great  mistake. 

Wall,  after  reciting  much  evidence  in  reference  to 
the  custom  of  this  people,  says,  "  This  shows  plainly 
that  the  Donatists  as  well  as  CathoUcs  baptized  in 
infancy."     Ibid.,  p.  311. 

Augustine,  400,  A.  D.,  says,  "  And  if  any  one  do 
ask  for  divine  authority  in  this  matter,  thoudi  that 


104  TRACTS  FOR  TUE  TIMES. 

■v^•hich  the  Avhole  church  practices,  and  which  has  not 
been  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use,  is 
very  reasonably  believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing 
delivered  [or  ordered]  by  authority  of  the  apostles ; 
yet  we  may  besides  take  a  true  estimate  how  much 
the  sacrament  of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the 
circumcision  which  God's  former  people  received." 
De  Baptismo  cont.  Donatistas.  Again  he  says,  "  I  do 
not  remember  that  I  ever  heard  any  other  thing  from 
any  Christians  that  received  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment ;  neither  from  such  as  were  of  the  Catholic 
church,  nor  from  such  as  belonged  to  any  sect  or 
schism.  I  do  not  remember  that  I  ever  read  other- 
wise in  any  writer  that  I  could  ever  find  treating  on 
these  matters,  that  followed  the  canonical  scripture, 
or  did  mean,  or  did  pretend  to  do  so."  See  Camp- 
bell's Debate  with  Rice,  pp.  403,  404.  There  are 
t^vo  things  made  certain  from  this  testimony :  the  first 
is,  that  infant  baptism  was  not  instituted  by  councils, 
it  ever  having  been  the  practice  of  the  church  ;  and 
the  second  is,  that  Baptists  were  not  then  in  the 
world,  for  if  they  had,  he  would  have  either  read  or 
heard  of  them. 

Pelagius,  417,  A.  D.,  is  thus  presented  by  Wall: 
"  Men  sLmdcr  me  as  if  I  denied  the  sacrament  of 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  105 

baptism  to  infants,  or  did  promise  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  to  some  persons  without  the  redemption  of 
Christ ;  which  is  a  thing  that  I  never  heard,  no  not 
even  any  wicked  heretic  say."  See  Wall,  vol.  1,  p. 
450.  Baptists,  if  in  the  world,  were  also  beyond  the 
knowledge  of  Pelagius  ;  for  he  tells  us  he  never  heard 
of  any  who  denied  infant  baptism ;  still.  Dr.  Howell 
says,  p.  285  of  his  work  on  communion,  that  the 
British  Christians  were  Baptists,  that  they  "  embraced 
the  Gospel  in  apostolic  times,  and  until  the  year  596, 
remained  undisturbed  in  its  exercise ;"  but  as  Pela- 
gius stands  in  history  a  native  of  North  Wales,  and 
declares  he  never  heard  of  a  people  holding  such 
views,  not  even  wicked  heretics,  we  are  forced  to 
regard  Dr.  Howell's  assumption  as  the  figment  of  an 
unfounded  fancy,  unworthy  of  being  recorded  by  even 
a  common  reader  of  church  history ;  and  so  we  com- 
mend the  Doctor  to  his  friends. 

Here  we  deem  it  to  purpose  to  state,  that  Pelagius 
was  well  qualified  to  oflfer  an  opinion  on  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism,  being  educated  at  the  college  of 
Bangor-iscoed,  located  on  the  river  Dee,  and  styled 
"  the  mother  of  all  learning,"  where  he  became  a 
monk,  and  afterwards  an  abbot.  His  name,  when  at 
home,  was  Morgan,  "  because  of  being  born  on  the 


106  TRACTS    FOR   THE    TIMES. 

sea-shore ;"  but  after  going  to  Italy,  he  changed  his 
name  into  Pelagius — "  a  word  of  the  same  significa- 
tion in  Latin  as  Morgan  in  Welsh."  Morgan  is  a 
compound  word,  the  latter  syllable  meaning  oieM-,  and 
the  former  the  sea.  See  Evans's  Primitive  Ages,  171, 
ed.  1834. 

Evans,  speaking  of  the  proof  in  favor  of  the  ancient 
British  Church  baptizing  infants,  says,  "  This  is  suffi- 
cient to  show  that  mfant  baptism  was  practised  among 
the  ancient  Britons,  as  among  all  other  Christians 
throughout  the  world.     Ibid.,  p.  181. 

The  council  of  Carthage,  418,  A.  D.,  says,  "Also 
we  do  determine,  that  whosoever  does  deny  that 
infants  may  be  baptized,  &c.,  let  him  be  anathema." 
Wall,  vol.  1,  p.  470. 

Some  Anti-Pedobaptists,  without  the  most  slender 
foundation,  try  to  bring  this  up  as  a  contradiction 
of  Austin's  or  Agustine's  testimony,  that  he  never 
heard  the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism  denied ;  but 
Wall  very  justly  meets  the  point  thus :  "It  appears 
with  plainness  more  than  enough,  that  as  well  as  the 
makers  of  this  canon,  as  they  against  whom  it  was 
made,  did  both  of  them  look  on  the  thing  itself  as 
undoubted ;  they  differed  about  some  of  the  reasons 
or  effects  of  it  only."     Ibid.,  p.  471. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  107 

The  pri.iciple  involved  in  the  Pelagian  controversy 
was  the  thing  aimed  at  bj  the  council — nothing  else. 

Having  made  it  remarkably  evident  that  infant 
baptism  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles  up  into  the  fifth  century,  we 
shall  here  introduce,  deeming  an  array  of  evidence 
from  the  succeeding  centuries  unnecessary,  the  opin- 
ions of  a  few  modern  writers,  which  will  be  found 
highly  interesting,  being  based  on  facts. 

The  classic  Brown  says,  "  None  can,  without  the 
most  aflfronted  imposition,  allege  that  infant  baptism 
was  not  commonly  allowed  in  the  primitive  age  of 
Christianity."     Diet,  of  Bible. 

Calvin  says,  "What  they  [Anti-Pedobaptists]  cir- 
culate among  the  uninformed  multitude,  that  after  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  a  long  series  of  years  passed, 
in  wliich  infant  baptism  was  unknown,  is  shamefully 
contrary  to  truth ;  for  there  is  no  ancient  writer  who 
does  not  refer  its  origin,  as  a  matter  of  certainty,  to 
the  age  of  the  apostles."  See  Inst,  of  the  Christ. 
Relig.,  Book  4,  chap.  16,  p.  500,  Phil  edition. 

Dr.  John  P.  Campbell  says,  "  Dr.  Gill  [Baptist] 
admits  that  infant  baptism  was  the  universal  practice 
of  the  church  from  the  third  to  the  eleventh  century." 
See  his  work  on  Baptism,  p.  80. 


108  TRACTS    FOR   THE   TIMES. 

The  learned  Milner  speaks  thus :  "  We  have  never 
had  such  a  custom  as  that  of  confining  baptism  to 
adults,  nor  the  churches  of  God."  Ecc.  Hist.,  vol.  1, 
p.  401. 

Perrin,  speaking  of  the  practice  of  the  Waldenses, 
says,  "  They  kept  their  Sabbaths  duly,  causing  their 
children  to  be  baptized  according  to  the  usage  of  the 
primitive  church."  See  Debate  between  Campbell 
and  Rice,  p.  405.  From  this  we  learn  that  the  Wal- 
denses beheved  that  the  primitive  church  practised 
infant  baptism.  Their  faith,  judging  from  what  we 
have  presented,  was  well  founded. 

Let  us  now  hear  Dr.  Miller  on  this  point,  who  says, 
"  I  can  assure  you,  my  friends,  with  the  utmost 
candor  and  confidence,  after  much  careful  inquiry  on 
the  subject,  that,  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years 
after  the  birth  of  Christ,  there  was  not  a  single 
society  of  professing  Christians  on  earth,  who  opposed 
infant  baptism  on  anything  like  the  grounds  which 
distinguish  our  modern  Baptist  brethren.  It  is  an 
undoubted  fact,  that  the  people  known  in  ecclesi- 
astical history  under  the  name  of  Anabaptists,  who 
rose  in  Germany,  in  the  year  1522,  were  the  first 
body  of  people,  in  the  whole  Christian  world,  who 
rejected  the  baptism  of  infants,  on  the  principles  now 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  109 

adopted  by  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  body."  See  his 
•work  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  21,  quoted  by  Ilinton, 
p.  294. 

Dr.  Rice  says :  "  I  have  proved  by  the  history  of 
the  church,  that  for  fifteen  hundred  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  not  a  writer  can  be  found  maintaining 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  unscriptural,  excepting, 
perhaps,  a  small  sect  called  Petrobusians."  He  could 
have  added,  "  because  they  did  not  believe  infants 
capable  of  salvation,"  and  thus  accounted  for  their 
opposition,  leaving  the  matter  as  Dr.  Miller  presents 
it,  which  most  unquestionably  is  sanctioned  by  the  facts 
of  history.     See  his  Debate  with  Campbell,  p.  420. 

Taylor,  p.  112,  says,  "  The  Christian  churches  in 
the  North,  in  the  South,  in  the  East,  and  in  the 
West,  never  did  refuse  baptism  to  infants.  Are  the 
Baptists  then  wiser  than  all  the  world,  than  all  the 
faithful  men  of  apostolic  ages,  and  than  all  their  con- 
temporaries ?  Is  it  likely  that  they  alone,  of  all  the 
millions  of  Christians  of  every  period  and  nation, 
should  be  the  only  persons  who  have  elicited  scrip- 
tural truth?" 

Dr.  John  P.  Campbell,  pp.  47, 48,  says,  "  It  is  a  wcU 
known  fact,  that,  before  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
Christianity  had  diffused  itself,  and  churches  had  been 


110  TRACTS   FOR    THE   TIMES. 

formed  throughout  the  then  known  "world.  From  the 
sources  of  the  Nile  to  the  bosom  of  barbarous  Scythia, 
and  from  the  Indus  to  Caledonia,  this  religion  was 
embraced,  and  Christian  societies  were  organized. 
Now,  is  it  possible  that  all  those  numerous  and  widely 
extended  churches  were  estabhshed  upon  the  plan  of 
adult  baptism,  and  that  in  less  than  one  hundred  years 
from  the  time  of  the  apostles,  such  an  establishment 
should  have  been  broken  do^ra,  abolished,  and  so 
radically  destroyed  that,  like  the  city  of  Babylon,  not 
one  shattered  column,  not  one  trace  of  its  former 
splendor  should  be  visible  ?"     Impossible  ! 

We  shall  now  hear  the  much  distinguished  Wall  on 
the  general  history  of  infant  baptism,  knowing  that  his 
judgment  must  command  the  respect  of  our  Baptist 
friends — he  being  endorsed,  so  far  as  facts  are  con- 
cerned, by  some  of  their  leading  men,  of  which  the 
following  is  an  example :  "  I  mean,"  says  Whiston, 
"  the  very  honest,  learned,  and  pious  Dr.  Wall, 
whose  History  of  Infant  Baptism  (not  as  to  the  contro- 
versial part,  but  as  to  the  facts  therein  contained) 
seems  to  me  most  accurately  done  ;  and  may,  I  think, 
be  depended  on,  by  Baptists  themselves."  See 
Friendly  Advice  to  Baptists,  1784. 

"  Lastly,"  says  Wall,  "  as  these  evidences  are  for 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  Ill 

the  first  four  hundred  years,  in  which  there  appears  only 
one  man,  Tertullian,  that  advised  the  delay  of  infant 
baptism  in  some  cases ;  and  one,  Gregory,  that  did 
perhaps,  practice  such  delay  in  the  case  of  his  children, 
but  no  society  of  men  so  thinking,  or  so  practising ; 
nor  no  one  man  saying  it  was  unlawful  to  baptize 
infants ;  so  in  the  next  seven  hundred  years,  there  is 
not  so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found  that  either  spoke 
for,  or  practised  any  such  delay.  But  all  the  con- 
trary, &c.  And  when  about  the  year  1130,  one  sect 
among  the  Albigenses  declared  against  the  baptizing 
of  infants,  as  being  incapable  of  salvation,  the  main 
body  of  that  people  rejected  that  opinion ;  and  they 
of  them  that  held  that  opinion  quickly  dwindled  away 
and  disappeared ;  there  being  no  more  heard  of  hold- 
ing that  tenet,  till  the  rising  of  the  German  Anti- 
Pedobaptists,  anno,  1522."     See  vol.  2,  p.  501. 


TRACTS  FOR  THE   TIMES. 

TRACT   VI. 

INFANT    BAPTISM. 

INFANT  BAPTISM  PROVED  BY  THE  FAITH  AND  PRACTICE  OF  THE 
WALDENSES. 

In  this  tract  we  shall  give  the  true  position  of  the 
Albigenses,  or  Waldenses  on  the  subject  of  infant 
baptism.  In  our  last  we  saw  that  Wall  referred  to 
them  as  Pedobaptists,  excepting  a  sect  among  them 
that  did  not  believe  infants  capable  of  salvation,  hence 
its  opposition  to  their  baptism.  That  the  testimony 
of  Wall  is  entitled  to  much  confidence,  all  will  admit ; 
for  even  Wilson  of  England,  a  professed  Baptist,  said 
in  an  address  to  the  people  of  his  own  denomination  : 
"  Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  to  facts, 
appeared  to  him  most  accurately  done,  and  might  be 
relied  on  by  Baptists  themselves."  See  Mem.  of  his 
Life,  part  2,  p.  461. 

But  as  Baptists  try  to  trace  a  line  of  succession 
through  the  Anabaptists  and   Waldenses   back   into 


INFANT     LAPTI.SAI.  113 

remote  antiquity,  we  must  here  notice  this,  so  far  as  it 

bears  on  infant  baptism.     In  short,  the  Anabaptists 

of  Germany  must  be  regarded  as  the  first  in  the 

character  of  a  society,  that  ever  opposed  the  baptism 

of  infants  ;    for,  correctly  speaking,  the  hostiUty  to 

infant  baptism  in  1130  did  not  arise  out  of  doctrine 

akin  to  the  doctrine  preached  by  the  Anabaptists,  and 

their  successors  since,  but  out  of  the  faith  of  Peter  de 

Bruys,  which  amounted  to  this,  that  infants  were  not 

fit  subjects  of  salvation.     But  in  order  to  make  this 

evident,  and  to  place  it  beyond  all  doubt,  we  shall 

here    give   his    opinion,  which   runs   thus:    "Christ 

sending   his    disciples    to    preach,    says,    '  He    that 

believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that 

believeth  not  shall  be  damned.'     From  these  words 

of  our  Saviour,  it  is  plain  that  none  can  be  saved 

unless  he  believe  and  be  baptized,  that  is  have  both 

Christian  faith  and  baptism,  for  not  one  of  these  but 

both  together  does  save,  so  that  infants,  though  they 

be  by  you  baptized,  yet,  since  by  reason  of  their  age, 

they  cannot  believe,  are  not  saved.    It  is,  therefore,  an 

idle  and  vain  thing  for  you  to  wash  persons  with  water 

at  such  a  time,  when  you  may  indeed  cleanse  the 

skin  from  dirt  in  a  human  manner,  but  not  purge  their 

suuls  from  sin."     See  Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  257.      The 
10 


114  TRACTS   FOR    THE   TIMES. 

reader  can  now  see  why  we  said  a  moment  ago  that 
the  Anabaptists,  of  1522,  were  the  first  direct  opposers 
of  infant  baptism — the  followers  of  Peter  de  Brays 
acting  on  a  different  principle.  In  short,  if  we  except 
two  men  who  only  advised  a  delay  in  the  case  of 
infant  baptism,  and  a  few  opinions  of  a  kindred  nature, 
and  the  Petrobusians,  who  did  not  believe  infants 
capable  of  salvation,  the  Anabaptists,  1522,  and  their 
followers  since,  stand  duly  entitled,  as  a  society,  to 
all  the  opposition  on  Baptist  principles,  that  infant 
baptism  has  ever  encountered,  so  far  as  we  know,  or 
our  church  history  informs  us.  To  this  effect  Wall, 
Rice,  and  Miller  testify.  See  their  testimony  in  the 
previous  tract. 

If  Baptists  should  dissent  from  this,  then  they  must 
fall  in  with,  and  claim  affinity  to  men  who  did  not 
believe  infants  capable  of  salvation — therefore  their 
opposition.  Here  we  pause,  and  here  we  wish  to 
know  the  decision  of  the  Baptist !  To  Peter  de  Bruys 
he  must  go,  1130,  and  subscribe  to  the  horrible 
doctrine  above  set  forth,  or  to  the  Anabaptists,  1522, 
and  there  begin,  the  true  line  of  opposition  to  the 
baptism  of  infants.  .Either  choice  is  not  very  pleasing, 
for  neither  is  to  be  envied. 

Peter  de  Bruys,  we  frankly  admit,  reasons  much 


INFANT     BArXIS.M.  115 

more  correctly  from  the  premises  than  Baptists ;  for, 
when  the  text  on  which  both  found  their  views  is 
applied  to  infants,  all  must  see  that  he  is  right  in  his 
conclusion,  and  that  Baptists  either  ought  to  yield  to 
his  opinion,  or  abandon  their  theory.  To  illustrate 
these  remarks,  we  shall  here  introduce  a  quotation 
from  Isaiah,  i,  19,  which  reads  thus :  "  If  ye  be 
willing  and  obedient,  ye  shall  eat  the  good  of  the 
land."  Now,  apply  this  to  infants,  and  what  then  ? 
Can  they  be  willing  and  obedient  ?  No !  Conse- 
quently they  cannot  eat  the  good  of  the  land,  and 
must  die.  Let  us  now  introduce  the  passage  on  which 
Peter  de  Bruys  founded  his  opinion,  and  we  shall  at 
once  have  a  plain  comment  upon  the  point  here  at 
issue.  The  passage  is,  "  he  that  believeth  and  is  bap- 
tized, shall  be  saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned."  Well,  apply  this  to  infants,  and  what 
then  ?  Can  they  beUeve  and  be  baptized  ?  No ! 
Consequently  they  cannot  be  saved ;  and  thus  it  is, 
that  Bruys  reasons  correctly  from  his  premises, 
leaving  us  under  the  lasting  impression,  that  a 
Baptist  is  but  a  sophist  beside  him.  But  do  not 
children  eat  the  fruit  of  the  land,  though  they  cannot 
be  classified  with  the  willing  and  obedient  ?  In  like 
manner  infants    partake   of    the   blessings   of   holy 


116  TRACTS    FOR   THE   TIMES. 

baptism,  though  they  cannot  believe.  In  plain  Eng- 
lish, ho^Yever,  neither  passage,  in  a  direct  sense, 
applies  to  infants,  and  all  reasonable  men  ought  to 
see  this. 

But  let  us,  in  this  connection,  particularly  invite 
attention  to  the  sect  among  the  "Waldenses  that 
opposed  the  baptism  of  infants.  More  than  a  few  of 
the  Baptist  writers  and  speakers  get  behind  this  sect, 
and,  by  reason  of  not  stating  all  the  facts  in  the  case, 
leave  the  impression  on  the  minds  of  many  that  the 
whole  were  Anti-Pedobaptists,  when,  in  reality,  not 
one  of  them  was,  in  our  sense  of  the  term.  If  Bap- 
tists should  make  known  the  true  character  of  this 
sect,  the  following  facts  would  appear:  that  its 
members  did  not  believe  infants  capable  of  salvation, 
and  that,  on  this  account,  and  this  alone,  their  baptism 
was  opposed :  and  moreover,  that  the  Waldenses 
always,  as  a  body,  opposed  the  opinion  of  this  sect, 
and  that  it  soon  dwindled  away.  Ought  not  a  con- 
scientious Baptist,  in  view  of  these  undeniable  facts, 
blush  when  he  hears  it  said  that  the  "Waldenses  were 
Anti-Pedobaptists  ?  If  a  people,  believing  what  is 
above  placed  to  their  account,  who  were  not  very 
numerous,  constituted  the  Waldenses  Anti-Pedobap- 
tists. because  they  lived  among  them,  then  they  were 


INFANT     BAPTISiM.  117 

such,  but  in  no  other  sense  such.     IIow  monstroag 
the  idea! 

In  the  third  chapter  of  Mr.  Baker's  review  of  our 
work  on  baptism,  including  the  mode  and  subject,  we 
find  the  following  statement :  "  It  is  said,  that  at  Ivoi 
in  the  diocese  of  Treves,  there  were  some  who  denied 
that  the  sacrament  of  baptism  was  available  to  the 
salvation  of  infimts."  This  Mr.  Baker  takes  from  a 
writer  on  the  Waldenses — hence  we  give  it,  believing 
that  Baptists,  because  of  this,  will  gladly  embrace  its 
teachings.  Here  we  have  a  striking  proof  of  what 
we  have  said  on  the  sect  at  issue,  and  its  connection 
with  the  Waldenses.  Look  at  the  quotation  again, 
but  especially  at  this  part  of  it :  "  some  who  denied 
that  baptism  was  available  to  the  salvation  of  infants." 
Some.  Ah  !  this  reveals  the  secret.  The  some  were 
the  followers  of  Bruys.  In  proof  that  we  are  correct 
in  this,  we  shall  again  quote  from  the  same  writer  in 
Mr.  Baker's  review,  just  eight  Hnes  below  the  previous 
extract,  who  speaks  thus :  "  The  truth  is,  they  did 
not  reject  this  sacrament,  or  say  it  was  useless ;  but 
only  counted  it  unnecessary  to  infants,  because  they 
are  not  of  age  to  believe,  or  capable  of  giving  evidence 
of  their  faith.  That  which  induced  them  as  I  suppose 
to  entertain  this  opinion,  is  what  our  Lord  says  :  '  He 


118         TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  sha,!!  be  saved,  but  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned.' "  This  is  a 
truthful  conjecture.  See  the  opinion  of  their  founder, 
Bruys,  as  given  above. 

Mr.  Baker  makes  all  we  contend  for  in  this  par- 
ticular, perfectly  plain,  by  presenting,  same  chapter, 
Saccho*  as  speaking  thus  of  the  Waldenses,  1258, — 
Jones  says  1250, — "  Some  of  them  hold  that  baptism 
is  of  no  advantage  to  infants,  because  they  cannot 
actually  believe."  This  quotation  is  the  more  remark- 
able from  the  fact,  that  it  is  found  in  Jones'  Hist., 
vol.  2,  p.  20,  the  very  history  that  misrepresents 
Perrin  and  the  Waldenses.  But  we  ask  the  reader 
to  look  at  the  face  of  this  quotation,  and  then  think 
a  little.  "  Some  of  them,"  yes,  "  some  of  them  hold 
that  baptism  is  of  no  advantage  to  infants."  Here  we 
have  the  word  some  again.  In  short,  we  learn  from 
this  passage  that  there  were  some  who  held  the 
opposite  doctrine ;  for  he  plainly  tells  us  that  only 
^'  some  of  them  "  so  believed.     We  are  surprised  at 


*  The  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  article  Waldenses, 
says,  "  Saccho,  the  Inquisitor,  admits  that  the  Waldenses  flour- 
ished five  hundred  years  before  Peter  Waldo.  This  carries  us 
back  to  the  year  660."  Again  it  says,  "  They  had  existed  under 
various  names  as  a  distinct  class  of  dissenters  from  the  established 
churches  of  Greece  and  Rome  in  the  earliest  ages." 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  119 

the  thouglit,  that  any  Baptist  would  place  this  in 
evidence  to  prove  that  the  Waldenses  were  Anti- 
Pedobaptists.  It  simply  proves  what  we  have  again 
and  again  stated,  that  there  were  some  among  the 
Waldenses  who  did  not  believe  in  the  salvation  of 
infants,  and  on  this  account  rejected  their  baptism — 
that  these  were  the  followers  of  Bruys ;  and  all  the 
quotations  presented  illustrate  and  confirm  this  leading 
historical  truth. 

A  little  before  the  year  1140,  Evervinus  wrote  a 
letter  to  St.  Bernard,  respecting  the  followers  of 
Bruys,  in  which  he  stated,  "  They  do  not  believe 
infant  baptism."  Peter,  Abbot  of  Cluny,  1146,  wrote 
against  Bruys,  charging  him  and  his  associates,  with 
the  "  denial  of  infant  baptism."  See  Wall,  vol.  2, 
p.  256.  This  gives  us  the  true  line  of  distinction 
between  the  Petrobusians  and  the  Waldenses. 

Let  us,  however,  here  remark,  that  no  sect,  correctly 
speaking,  ever  received  the  sanction  of  the  Waldenses 
while  opposed  to  infant  baptism.  Writers  err,  greatly 
err,  when  they  confound  a  sect,  which  ought,  properly 
speaking,  to  be  called  Petrobusians  or  Henricians, 
with  the  Waldensians ;  for,  at  most,  the  former  only 
lived  among  the  latter  to  be  opposed  by  doctrine  and 
practice. 


120  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

But  having  said  enough,  we  presume,  to  show  that 
the  sojne  were  the  followers  of  Bruys,  we  shall  here 
remind  the  reader  of  the  declaration  of  Wall,  by 
giving  this  pointed  extract  from  it,  by  way  of  con- 
firming what  we  have  said :  "  And  when  about  the 
year  1130,  one  sect  among  the  Albigenses  declared 
against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being  incapable  of 
salvation,  the  main  body  of  that  people  rejected  that 
their  opinion  ;  and  they  of  them  that  held  that  opinion 
quickly  dwindled  away."  This  is  a  just  account  of 
the  whole  matter.  Mr.  Baker  says :  "  "We  admit 
that  the  modern  Waldenses  practice  infant  baptism. 
The  preceding  declaration  of  Wall  fully  explains  all 
this." 

The  followers  of  Bruys  called  the  some  in  Mr. 
Baker's  review,  who  preached  and  practiced  what  we 
have  placed  to  their  account,  soon  passed  away, 
leaving  the  Waldenses  proper  to  do  what  Perrin,  their 
own  historian,  recorded  of  them  when  he  wrote : 
"  They  kept  their  Sabbathes  duely,  causing  their 
children  to  be  baptized  according  to  the  order  of  the 
primitive  church."  See  Book  1,  chap.  6,  pp.  30,  31. 
But  why  do  we  call  Perrin  their  own  historian  ? 
Because  he  descended  from  them,  and  wrote  their 
history.    See  Debate  between  Campbell  and  Rice,  also 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  121 

see  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  article 
Waldenses. 

NoNY,  let  us  turn  to  Perrin,  Book  2,  p.  64,  where  we 
read :  "  Among  others  there  appeared  a  poor,  simple, 
laboring  man,  [Waldensian]  whom  the  president  com- 
manded to  cause  his  child  to  be  re-baptized."  Again, 
in  Book  1,  ch.  6,  p.  43,  we  read,  "  And  for  this  cause 
it  is,  that  we  present  our  children  in  baptism,"  &c. 

And  again,  in  Book  3,  ch.  4,  p.  99,  we  read  :  "  The 
things  that  are  necessary  in  the  administration  of 
baptisme,  are  the  exorcismes,  breathings,  the  signe  of 
the  crosse  on  the  forehead  and  breast  of  the  infant,"  &c. 

Wall,  vol.  2,  243,  presents  them  as  speaking  thus : 
"  And  we  bring  our  children  to  baptism." 

Dr.  John  P.  Campbell  quotes  from  Perrin,  book  2, 
ch.  4,  thus :  "  According  to  the  promise  we  made  in 
our  baptism,  in  our  infancy." 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Bert,  a  distinguished  Waldensian 
minister,  w^ho  had  hundreds  of  volumes  in  his  library, 
informed  Dwight,  1825,  that  the  "  Waldenses  had 
always  baptized  their  infants,  and  had  always  done  it 
by  affusion."     See  Hendrick  on  Baptism,  p.  63. 

We  take  the  following  from  Jones'  History,  vol.  2, 

p.  47,  first  American  ed.,  which  is  marked  the  seventh 

article  of  the  Waldensian  confession  of  faith,  and  reads 
11 


122  TKACTS   FOR    THB   TIMES. 

thus :  "  We  believe  that  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism 
the  water  is  a  visible  and  external  sign  -which  repre- 
sents to  us  that  which  by  virtue  of  God's  invisible 
operation,  is  within  us,  namely,  the  renovation  of  our 
minds,"  &c.  How  came  a  Baptist  writer  to  place  this 
in  print  in  favor  of  his  views  ?  Surely  this  evidently 
shows  that  the  Waldenses  spoke  of  baptism  as  we  do, 
and  not  of  it  as  a  figure  of  the  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  the  doctrine  of  Baptists.  Every  step  we 
make  in  our  examination  of  the  true  connection  of  the 
Waldenses  with  our  views,  but  the  more  confirms  us 
on  this  point. 

In  his,  Jones'  Church  History,  vol.  2,  p.  145,  we 
are  thus  informed ;  "  The  Calabrian  Waldenses  formed 
a  union  with  the  church  of  Geneva,  of  which  Calvin 
was  the  pastor." 

Now,  if  the  Waldenses  were  Anti-Pedobaptists, 
how  came  it  to  pass  that  a  branch  of  them  so  harmo- 
niously united  with  Calvin,  a  decided  Pedobaptist? 
This  fact  of  itself,  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  convince 
Baptists  that  they  do  greatly  err  in  stating  that  the 
Christians  of  the  valley  were  Anti-Pedobaptists. 

Dr.  Miller  remarks,  "But  there  is  one  notorious 
unquestionable  fact,  which  is  sufficient  of  itself,  to 
refute  the  allegation  both  of  Prelatists  and  Anti-Pedo- 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  123 

baptists,  in  regard  to  the  Waldenses,  and  that  is,  that 
after  the  reformation  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  and 
the  organization  of  the  reformed  churches,  on  the 
Presbyterian  plan,  in  France,  Switzerland,  Germany, 
&c.,  the  Waldenses  acknowledged  them  as  true 
churches,  held  communion  with  them,  received  minis- 
ters from  them,  and  in  every  variety  of  way  manifested 
that  they  recognized  their  regular  Christian  character, 
and  the  validity  of  their  ministry."  Upon  this  most 
important  fact.  Dr.  Miller  remarks,  "  This,  surely, 
could  never  have  been  done,  if  the  Waldenses  had 
maintained  the  divine  right  of  Prelacy,  or  the  obliga- 
tion of  the  Anti-Pedobaptist  system."  Quoted  from 
the  Presbyterian  Herald,  1852. 

In  a  public  declaration  made  by  the  Waldenses  in 
1G03,  we  have  their  language  as  follows :  "  Whereas 
time  out  of  mind,  and  from  generation  to  generation 
our  predecessors  have  been  instructed  and  brought  up 
in  that  same  doctrine  and  religion  which  we,  from  our 
infancy  have  openly  and  publicly  professed,  and  in 
which  we  Ukewise  have  instructed  our  families  as  we 
have  been  taught  by  our  ancestors;  whereas,  also, 
when  the  Marquisate  of  Saluces  was  under  the  juris- 
diction of  the  king  of  France,  we  were  permitted  to 
make  profession  without  trouble  and  molestation,  as 


124  TRACTS    FOR   THE   TIMES. 

our  brethren  of  the  valleys  of  Lucerne,  La  Perouse, 
and  others  do,  who  bj  express  treaty  made  with  our 
sovereign  lord  and  prince,  have  enjoyed  to  this  day 
the  free  exercise  of  the  reformed  religion,  yet  his 
highness,  instigated  and  pushed  on  by  evil  counsel 
and  by  persons  biased  by  prejudice  and  passion, 
rather  than  of  his  own  free  will,  resolved  to  disturb  and 
molest  us,  having  published  an  edict  for  that  purpose. 
To  the  end,  therefore,  that  all  men  may  know  that  it 
is  not  for  any  crime  or  misdemeanor  perpetrated  either 
against  the  person  of  the  Prince,  or  for  murder  or 
theft,  that  we  are  thus  persecuted  and  spoiled  of  our 
goods  and  houses,  we  protest  and  declare,  that  being 
very  well  assured  that  the  doctrine  and  religion 
taught  and  practised  by  the  reformed  churches  of 
France,  Switzerland,  Germany,  Geneva,  England, 
Scotland,  Denmark,  Sweden,  Poland,  and  other  King- 
doms, countries,  and  Lordships,  is  the  only  true 
Christian  doctrine  and  religion  approved  of  and  estab- 
lished by  God,  who  alone  can  make  us  acceptable  to 
himself,  and  bring  us  to  salvation,  we  are  resolved  to 
follow  it  at  the  expense  of  our  lives  and  fortunes,  and 
to  continue  therein  to  the  end  of  our  lives."  And, 
again,  say  they  in  the  same  document :  "In  the 
meantime  we  desire  tJie  reformed  churches,  in  the 


INFANT     BAPTISM.  125 

midst  ot  our  exile  and  calamity,  to  receive  and  looJs 
upon  lis  as  true  members  thereof,  being  ready,  if  it 
should  please  God  so  to  order  it  to  seal  the  confession 
of  faith  by  them  made  and  published,  with  our  blood, 
which  we  acknowledge  to  be  every  way  conformable 
to  the  doctrine  taught  and  written  by  the  holy 
Apostles,  and  consequently,  therefore,  truly  apostoli. 
caV     See  Perrin,  pp.  92,  93. 

This  tract,  we  may  now  safely  say,  makes  good  the 
following  points ;  that  a  sect  among  the  iVlbigenses 
opposed  the  baptism  of  infants,  not  believing  them 
capable  of  salvation ;  that  the  Waldenses  or  Albi- 
genses  proper  always  opposed  this  idea,  both  by  faith 
and  practice,  "  causing  their  children,"  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  their  own  historian,  "  to  be  baptized  according 
to  the  order  of  the  primitive  church."  This  is  enough. 
They  were  Pedobaptists. 

But  we  shall  now  bring  this  tract  to  a  close  by  a  few 
short  extracts,  deemed  highly  appropriate  and  forcible 
here.  Hinton  [Baptist]  speaking  of  the  Waldenses, 
says,  "  I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  respecting  them  that 
none  of  them  admitted  infants  to  baptism."  See  his 
History  of  Baptism,  p.  291.  Dr.  John  P.  Campbell 
says,  "  Dr.  Gill  [Baptist]  admits  that  infant  baptism 
was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church  from  the 


126  TRACTS   FOR   TUE   TIMES. 

third  to  the  eleventh  century,  and  Robinson  [Baptist] 
has  been  wise  enough  to  abandon  the  fiction  of  the 
Waldenses  being  Baptists."  See  his  work  on  Baptism, 
pp.  32, 80—32,  Proofs  and  Illustrations— 80,  Sermon 
on  Christian  Baptism.  This  is  how  Baptist  writers 
cut  "  the  line  of  succession  through  Anabaptists  and 
Waldenses,  back  into  remote  antiquity,"  and  leave 
infant  baptism  the  unbroken  practice  of  the  church. 

Respected  reader,  have  not  the  Waldenses,  judging 
from  the  evidence  of  this  Tract,  been  a  remarkable  class 
of  Baptists  ?  Verilv,  we  are  so  pleased  with  them,  that 
we  commend  them  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  all. 

But  in  bringing  this  tract  to  a  close,  and  with  it  our 
labor  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  we  would  most 
kindly  say  to  parents,  have  your  children  dedicated 
to  God  by  holy  baptism,  then  baptize  them  with 
heavenly  care  and  affection,  teaching  them  to  lift  their 
little  hands  upward,  saying,  "  Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven,"  and  many  of  them  through  coming  years, 
will  delight  to  call  you  blessed.  Without  this  all  else 
will  serve  but  little  purpose. 

May  the  benedictions  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  rest  on  all  that  so  believe  and 
practice,  and  on  all  that  live  the  truth  to  find — hence- 
forth— even  for  ever — Amen. 


TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 


TRACT   VII. 

QUESTIONS  ON  THE  MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

This  tract  is  principally  designed  for  the  plain, 
truth-seeking  portion  of  all  reading  communities.  We 
prefer  and  adopt  the  method  of  question  and  answer, 
persuaded  that  it  will  be  found  much  more  convincing 
than  the  regular  plan  of  writing. 

Query  1.  What  was  the  first  act  of  which  we  read 
that  was  called  a  baptism  ? 

A.  The  flood  of  Noah. 

Q.  2.  Was  the  world  then  immersed  ? 

A.  It  was  not,  because  we  read  in  Genesis,  7,  12, 
that  the  rain  was  upon  the  earth  forty  days  and  forty 
nights. 

Q.  3.  But  was  not  the  earth  covered  with  water, 
and  thereby  immersed  ? 

A.     The  earth,  of  course,  was  covered  with  water. 


128  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

but  it  was  not  immeresd,  from  the  fact  that  the  rain 
fell  on  it,  a  thing  contrary  to  the  action  of  immersion, 
■which  requires  the  thing  to  be  dipped  into  the  water. 

Q.  4.  Who  called  the  act  of  affusion,  by  which  the 
world  was  covered  with  water,  a  baptism  ? 

A.     Tertullian,  A.  D.,  200. 

Q.  5.  What  evidence  have  we  of  this  ? 

A.  Booth,  a  learned  Baptist,  says  that  Tertullian 
calls  "  Noah's  flood  the  baptism  of  the  world."  See 
Baptist  Library,  three  volumes  in  one,  p.  377. 

Q.  6.  What  was  the  first  act  of  which  we  read  in 
the  Scripture  that  was  called  a  baptism. 

A.  The  wetting  which  the  children  of  Israel  receiv- 
ed while  on  their  way  to  the  land  of  promise. 

Q.  7.  What  proof  have  we  of  this  ? 

A.  Paul  says,  1  Corinthians,  x,  2,  "  And  were  all 
baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 

Q.  8.  Can  you  describe  the  mode  of  the  act  ? 

A.  The  celebrated  Locke  says :  "  The  apostle  calls 
it  [the  act  of  affusion]  baptism,  which  is  the  initiating 
ceremony  into  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church  : 
and  the  cloud  and  the  sea,  both  being  nothing  but 
water,  are  well  suited  to  that  typical  representation ; 
and  that  the  children  of  Israel  were  washed  with  rain 
from  the  cloud,  may  be  collected  from  Psalm  Ixviii, 


QUESTIONS.  129 

9."  See  his  note  on  1  Corinthians,  x,  2,  Cambridge 
edition,  1832. 

Q.  9.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  great  man  that 
so  speaks  ? 

A.  Many,  but  I  shall  only  mention  one  —  John 
Wesley,  who  says  :  "  They  could  therefore  be  only 
sprinkled  by  drops  of  the  sea  water,  and  refreshing 
dews  from  the  cloud ;  probably  intimated  in  that, 
*  Thou  sentest  a  gracious  rain  upon  thine  inheritance, 
and  refreshedst  it  when  it  was  weary.'  Psalm  Ixviii, 
9."  See  Wesley's  Works,  p.  13,  vol.  6.  New  York 
ed.,  1839. 

Q.  10.  What  does  Justin  Martyr  say  respecting 
the  word  baptize  ? 

A.  Justin  Martyr  wrote  140,  A.  D.,  and  is  thus 
presented  by  Charles  Taylor  in  his  "Apostohc  Bap- 
tism," p.  143 :  "  The  same  Justin  also  says,  that 
sprinkling  with  Holy  water  '  was  invented  by  Daemons, 
in  imitation  of  the  true  baptism,  signified  by  the 
prophets,  that  their  votaries,  those  of  the  Daemons, 
might  also  have  their  pretended  purification  by 
water.'  " 

Q.  11.  Is  this  statement  objected  to  by  Baptists  ? 

A.  No  ;  for  we  find  that  a  writer  in  the  Tennessee 
Baptist.    1852,    quotes    and    adopts    the    following 


130  TRACTS    FOR    THE    TIMES. 

language :  "  As  "with  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and 
among  all  Pagans,  the  father  was  free  either  to 
expose  or  bring  up  a  new-born  child ;  in  the  latter 
case  he  raised  it  from  the  earth  in  his  arms,  and  had 
it  sprinkled  with  water,  and  named  it  in  the  presence 
of  his  chief  kinsmen." 

Q.  12.  "What  do  we  prove  by  this  Baptist  writer  ? 

A.  That  an  act  of  sprinkling  was  called  a  baptism  ; 
for  he  quotes  thus  in  another  paragraph  :  "A  kind  of 
infant  baptism  was  practiced  in  the  North,  long  before 
the  first  dawning  of  Christianity  had  reached  those 
parts." 

Q.  12.  When  a  Baptist  denies  that  the  word  bap- 
tize was  originally  used  to  express  an  act  of  sprinkling, 
what  ought  to  be  done  ? 

A.  Turn  his  attention  to  the  above  approved  quota- 
tions of  his  brother,  and  pause  for  his  answer  ;  for  we 
cannot  even  now  venture  to  guess  what  it  may  be. 

Q.  13.  What  does  Irenaeus  say  in  reference  to  the 
sense  of  the  word  baptize  ? 

A.  Irengeus  wrote  180,  A.  D.,  saying  of  a  certain 
sect :  "  Some  of  them  say  that  it  is  needless  to  brinc' 
the  person  to  the  water  at  all :  but  making  a  mixture 
of  oil  and  water,  they  pour  it  on  his  head."  See 
Wall,  vol.  2,  p.  137. 


QUESTIONS.  131 

Q.  14.  What  does  Mr.  Baker,  a  Baptist,  say 
respecting  this  matter  ? 

A.  Mr.  Baker  sajs :  "  Irenseus  testifies  in  regard 
to  this  sect  that  thej  baptized  by  affusion."  See  Ten. 
Bap.  1851. 

Q.  15.  What  do  -we  prove  by  Mr.  Baker  ? 

A.  That  Irenaeus  called  it  an  act  of  pouring  bap- 
tism. 

Q.  16.  What  does  Origen  say  respecting  the 
word  baptize  ? 

A.  Origen  wrote  216,  A.  D.,  stating :  "  How 
came  you  to  think  that  Elias,  when  he  should  come, 
would  baptize  ;  who  did  not  in  Ahab's  time  baptize 
the  wood  upon  the  altar,  which  was  to  be  washed 
before  it  was  burnt  by  the  Lord's  appearing  in  fire  ? 
But  he  ordered  the  priests  to  do  that ;  not  once  only, 
but  says,  Do  it  the  second  time  ;  and  they  did  it  the 
second  time :  and,  Do  it  the  third  time  ;  and  they 
did  it  the  third  time.  He  therefore  that  did  not 
himself  baptize  then,  but  assigned  that  work  to  others, 
how  was  he  likely  to  baptize,  when  he,  according  to 
Malachi's  prophecy,  should  come."  Wall,  vol.  2, 
p.  332. 

Q.  17.  But  how  was  this  baptism  performed  ? 

A.  The  water  was  poured  on  the  sacrifice  and  the 


132  TRACTS   FOR    THE  TIMES. 

wood,  and  this  is  what  Origen  called  a  baptism.     See 
1  Kings,  xviii,  33. 

Q.  18.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  the  Church  bap- 
tized by  affusion  in  early  times  ? 

A.  Bishop  Kenrick  says :  "  Five  martyrs  of  Lama- 
sota,  in  the  year  297,  when  in  prison  for  the  faith  of 
Christ,  sent  for  the  priest  James,  entreating  him  to 
come,  and  bring  with  him  a  vessel  of  water  to  baptize 
them."     Treatise  on  Baptism,  p.  166. 

Q.  19.  What  does  Lactantius,  who  wrote  320,  A. 
D.,  say  on  this  subject  ? 

A.  Lactantius  says :  "  Christ  received  baptism 
that  he  might  save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism,  i.  e.  by 
the  distilhng  of  the  purifying  dew."  See  Lib.  4. 
Cap.  5. 

Q.  20.  What  does  Paulinus,  Bishop  of  Nola,  who 
wrote  395,  A.  D.,  say  on  the  question  of  baptism  ? 

A.  Paulinus  says  :  "  He — John — washes  away  the 
sins  of  believers  by  the  pouring  of  water."  See  De- 
bate between  Campbell  and  Rice,  p.  135. 

Q.  21.  But  do  not  Baptists  argue  that  John  im- 
mersed the  people  in  the  water  of  Jordan  ? 

A.  Yes,  because  they  misapprehend  the  meaning 
of  the  words  in  and  tvith. 

Q.  22.   Can  we  understand  how   John   baptized, 


QUESTIONS.  133 

when  we  read  that  he  performed  the  act  in  Jordan, 
also  in  Bethabara,  in  the  wilderness,  and  in  Enon  ? 

A.  No,  because  in  is  a  word  of  place,  which  cannot 
express  mode,  when  connected  with  a  term  of  denomi- 
nation, of  which  class  baptize  is. 

Q.  23.  When  we  say  that  a  man  was  murdered  in 
Orleans,  do  we  express  the  mode  of  the  act  ? 

A.  We  do  not,  but  simply  the  place,  leaving 
another  form  of  speech  to  do  this. 

Q.  24.  What  form  of  speech  would  express  the 
mode  of  the  murder  ? 

A.  He  was  murdered  with  the  stroke  of  a  stick. 

Q.  25.  In  view  of  this,  do  we  not  at  once  see 
where  John  baptized,  and  how  he  baptized  ? 

A.  Most  clearly,  because  the  Scripture  states  that 
he  baptized  in  Jordan,  in  Bethabara,  in  the  wilder- 
ness, and  in  Enon,  thus  giving  us  the  where  or  place  ; 
and  also  states  that  he  baptized  at  every  point  with 
water,  thus  giving  us  the  mode  of  the  act. 

Q.  26.  When  we  state  that  a  man  was  murdered  in 
Orleans  with  the  stroke  of  a  stick,  do  we  mean  that 
he  was  murdered  in  the  stick  ? 

A.  Of  course  not,  but  that  the  stick  was  the  instru- 
ment applied  to  the  person. 

Q.  27.    On  the  other  hand,  when  we  state  that 


134  TRACTS  FOR  THE  TIMES. 

John  baptized  in  Jordan  with  water,  or  in  the  wilder- 
ness with  water,  do  we  convey  the  idea  that  he 
immersed  or  dipped  the  people  in  water  ? 

A.  Of  course  not,  but  that  the  water  was  the 
instrument  apphed  to  the  candidates. 

Q.  28.  To  illustrate  this,  we  ask,  how  are  we  to 
understand  this  statement — "  the  father  struck  the 
child  with  a  rod  m  the  garden  ?" 

A.  Not  that  he  immersed  or  dipped  the  child  in  the 
rod,  but  that  he  appUed  the  rod  to  the  person  of  the 
child. 

Q.  29.  Is  it  not  a  matter  of  indescribable  surprise 
that  any  should  contend  that  John  dipped  the  people 
in  water,  seeing  that  the  Scripture  testifies,  at  every 
point,  when  speaking  of  the  mode,  that  he  baptized 
with  water  ? 

A.  The  truth  of  this  must  be  obvious  to  all,  inas- 
much as  the  evidence  before  us  clearly  shows  that  a 
baptism  with  water  is  the  very  opposite  to  an  immer- 
sion in  water. 

Q.  30.  How  then  are  we  to  understand  the  account 
the  Scripture  gives  us  of  John's  baptism  ? 

A.  That  the  word  in  only  refers  to  place,  and 
signifies  limits  ;  that  is,  in  Jordan,  within  the  limits 
of  the  channel — in  Bethabara,  within  its  limits — m 


QUESTIONS.  135 

tlie  wilderness,  within  its  limits — in  Enon,  within  its 
limits ;  and  that  the  word  with  signifies  instrument- 
ality ;  that  is,  the  application  of  the  water  to  the 
candidates  by  John,  the  administrator  of  the  rite. 

Q.  31.  All  things  considered,  what  ought  we 
to  do? 

To  baptize  by  affusion,  remembering  that  John 
baptized  with  water,  not  in  water. 


REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 

EDITION  OF 

GOODRICH'S 


{'lIio  following  are  supposed  to  ho 
S  this  Series, 

1.  Completeness,  embracing  all 
that  is  required  bj'  the  pupil  from  the 
Alphabet  lo  the  highest  dcgTee  of  ac- 
complishment iu  the  art  of  reading. 

2.  Comprehensiveness, — includ- 
ing all  the  approved  helps  and  facilities 
both  for  teacher  and  learner. 

3.  Progression,  step  by  step  iu 
an  easy  path,  without  confusion,  breaks, 
or  other  ini[icdiments. 

4.  Simplicity  and  manliness  of 
sentinioiit,  which  constitute  the  charm 
of  Mr.  Goodrich's  style,  acknowledged 
wherever  the  English  language  is  read. 

5.  Orig"inality,  not  a  line  having 
been  biiniwed  from  any  other  series  ; 
while  every  other  reader  of  late  date 
lias  taken  mui'e  or  less,  and  generally 
without  acknowledgment,  from  them  or 
other  ciiiiipe.sitions  by  the  same  autlior. 

6.  The  Illustrations,  of  the  most 
beautiful    character,    introduced    with 


some  of  the  peculiar  excellencies  of  j 

,  as  a  whole: 

profusion,  in  order  to  interest  and  excite  ^ 
the  young  mind,  and  develop  its  per- , 
cei)tive  faculties. 

7.  Mechanical  Esecution— the 
paper  being  white  and  thick,  the  type 
large  and  clear,  and  the  binding  neat 
and  substantial. 

8.  Cheapness — being  sold  at  lower  i 
prices  than  works  of  inferior  authors, 
and  less  merit. 

9.  Hhetorical  Bzercises— afford- 
ing most  copious  practical  lessons  in 
enunciation,  articulation,  inflection,  em- 
phasis, and  accent. 

10.  Moral  Tendency — inculcating 
by  familiar  precepts  and  pleasing  illus- 
trations, a  sense  of  justice,  a  feeling  of 
kindly  charity,  a  reverence  for  religion, 
a  regard  for  the  rights,  feelings,  inter- 
ests and  characters  of  others,  a  love  of 
the  works  of  nature,  and  a  reverent , 
atibctiou  for  their  beneficent  Author. 


Goodrich's  First  Scliool  Reader. 

72  page.s,  18mo. 


1.  It  has  sixty-nine  bcaniiful  cngrav 
ivigg  of  simple  bul  very  iuteresliug 
subjects 

2.  It  begins  with  very  short  words, 
in  ver\  short  sentences,  nccompanying 
an  appropriate  engraving.  In  this 
respect  the  author  has  pursued  the 
plain  oiiginally  used  by  him  many  years 
since  in  "  Poler  Parley's  Primer,"  and 
sybseiiuently  limited  and  copied  by 
other  books. 

:!  It  coutaius  eighteen  lessons  in 
iirticuhition.  comprising  all  the  vowel 
soundri,  hu^od  on  the  principle  of  teach- 
itig  one  thing'  only  at  a  time,  and 
ui'.kini;  the  jivipil  perfect  in  that  one 
ihi.ig,  by  frequent  repetition 

4.  Preceding  each  >  cading  lesson  is 
K  iipel'ing  exercise,  containing  the  more 
iillii-ult  w  onls. 


5.  In  the  lessons,  Polysj'llables  are 
neither  accented  w^;- divided,  for  several 
reasons.  1.  Words  cannot  be  divided 
without  often  misleading.  2.  The  pupil ' 
should  learn  to  read  words  as  he  will 
afterwards  meet  with  them  in  othc 
books.  This  last  reason  applies  to ' 
the  marks  sometimes  used  to  dis- 
tinguish the  various  sounds  of  the 
vowels. 

6.  It  is  entirely  original,  being  writ- 
ten with  the  racy,  gonial  and  maiily 
simplicity  peculiar  to  the  author.  | 

7.  A  knowledge  of  points  and  stops 
is  given  in  the  course  of  the  book  in 
familiar  language.  ' 

8.  The  type  is  beautifully  clear  and 
ili>tiuct. 


GOODSICHS    SSSOND    SCHDOL    R2AD23, 

144  pages,  18mo. 


1.  This  work,  formerly  published  as 
>  the  First  Reader,  haviui;  been  revised, 
)  enlarged  and  improved,  and  being  novF 

preceded  by  a  new  introductory  volume, 
'  is  called  tlie  Second  Reader. 
i     2.    It  contains  about  fifty  beautiful 

engravings. 

3.  The  lessons  are  progressive, 
rather  harder  than  in  the  First  Reader, 
less  so  than  in  the  Third. 

4.  It  contains  28  lessons  on  articula- 
tion, comprising  all  the  consonant 
sounds  of  the  language — with  a  view 
to  produce  by  repetition  of  one  thing  at 
a  time,  tlie  attainments  of  a  full,  clear, 
distinct  cnojociation. 


5.  Preceding  each  lesson  is  a  Spell- 
ing Exercise,  containiiig  the  most  dith 
cult  words. 

6.  duestions  follow  each  lesson,  de- 
signed to  ensure  a  thorough  understand- 
ing of  the  subject.  These  may  be ' 
multiplied  by  the  judicious  teacher. 

7.  A  familiar  explanation  is  given  of  j 
punclwdion^arlicnlalxju,  CJiij>liii\iti.  Sj-c.  ; 

8  Its  lessons  cannot  be  surpassed 
by  any  in  the  language,  in  point  of 
adaptation  to  the  wants  of  young , 
learners. 

9.     The  tj'pe  is  large  and  very  clear, 
vi'hile  by  a  compact  an-angenient,  many  i 
new  lessons  have  been  inserteil. 


GOODRICH'S    THIRD    SCHOOL    READER, 

218  pages,  l%mo. 


1.  This  work,  originally  published  as 
the  .Second  Reader,  having  been  revised 
and  enlarged,  is  now  called  the  "Third 
Reader." 

2.  It  contains  a  great  variety  of 
beautiful  engravings. 

3.  The  lessons  are  progi-essive,  carry- 
ing the  loaruer  onward,  step  by  step. 

4.  It  contains  lessons  on  articulation, 
arranged  upon  the  principle  of  teaching 
otte  ihnig  at  a  time,  and  of  continual 
repetition. 

5.  Preceding  each  lesson  is  a  spelling 
exercise,  with  the  words  properly 
divided. 


6.     Following  each  lesson  are  (jaes- 
tions  to  excite  and  interest  the  jiupil. 

1.  Much  useful  information  is  given  i 
respecting  the  diS'erent  kiucis  of  type  i 
used  in  printing,  with  lessons  in  italic  ( 
letters,  script,  4'C. 

8.  To  ensure  greater  interest  in  the  < 
lessons,  there  is  a  contmuity  of  narra-  ' 
tive  between  many  of  the  lossous,  ' 
while  they  are  also  com))lete  in  them-  ' 
selves,  so  as  to  be  read  sepniatcly. 

9.  Prefixed  to  each  lesson  is  a  list] 
of  the  most  common  and  vulvar  errors  , 
of  pronunciation. 


GOODRICHS  T0VR1U    SCHOOL  READER. 

240  pages,  12mo. 


1.  This  work,  ongmally  published  as 
the  Third,  having  been  revised,  im- 
proved and  enlarged  to  nearly  (iouble 
its  former  contents,  is  now  the  Fourth 
lieader. 

2.  In  this,  as  in  all  the  others,  while 
many  facilities  are  offered  to  the  pro- 
gress of  the  pupil,  it  is  not  by  taking 
away  the  necessity  of  exertion,  but  by 
bringing  his  faculties  into  play,  and 
inducing  him  cheerfully  and  efficiently 
to  help  himself. 

y.  An  exercise  in  definitions  precedes 
each  lesson,  explaining  the  meaning  of 
ihe  words  as  used  in  the  contest. 

4.  Rules  for  Reading  are  prefixed  to 
the  book.  These  rules  are  simple,  in- 
toUigiWe.  and  practical,  and  tht-ir  effi- 


ciency ensured  by  a  peculiar  system  of 
questions  attached  to  the  lessons. 

5.  It  is  abundantly  illu.straled  with 
beautiful  engravings. 

6.  Errors  of  proiiunciiiliiii  an'  pointed 
out,  and  questions  asked  in  coiinGj>.ioii 
with  each  lesson. 

7  Appended  to  many  of  the  lessons 
are  remarks  of  an  explanatory  or  critical 
character. 

8.  It  contains  exercises  in  Elocution 
of  a  most  useful  and  practical  kind. 

9.  For  simplicity,  interest,  animation. 
pure  moral  tendency,  and  beautv  ol 
stjle  and  sentiment,  a  more  dclightlul 
body  of  reading  lessons  was  nevei 
before  brought  together. 


Goodrich's  Fifth  School  Reader. 


384  payees,  12mo. 


1.  Tliis  work,  formerly  tlie  Fourth 
Reader,  havinu'  boon  revised,  improved, 
and  enlarged  to  neai-ly  double  its  Ibrnier 
contents,  is  now  the  Fifth  Reader. 

2.  By  means  of  a  larije  page,  as  large, 
in  fact,  as  an  ordinary  octavo  page, 
with  clear,  compact  type,  and  a  neat 
arrangement,  nearly  twice  the  matter 
is  given  of  ordinary  works,  at  same 
price. 

3.  An  exercise  in  Spelling  and  Defi- 
ning precedes  each  lesson.     This  Gxcr- 

'  cise  contains  the  words  that  the  learner 
is  least  likely  to  know.  The  definitions 
of  upwards  of  three  thousand  words,  in 
the  sense  in  which  they  are  used  in  the 


context,  are  found  in  this  and  the  pre-  < 
ceding  book. 

4.  The  lessons  afford  a  selection  of| 
the  very  best  extracts  in  the  English  ' 
language,  and  comprise  more  than  usual  ' 
of  the  highest  efforts  of. modern  and, 
living  masters. 

0.  It  contains   an  ample  number  of  ( 
pages  devoted  to  rales  and  exercises  in 
Elocution. 

6.  By  a  new  arrangement,  the  se- 
quence of  the  lessons  has  been  made 
more  uniformly  progressive. 

7.  The  interests  of  religion,  morality, 
aad  good  manners,  have  always  been  [ 
carefully  considered  in  the  selection. 


S.  6.  Goodrich's  Primary  Historical  Series. 

FIVE  VOLS.,  EACH  216  pp.,  18mo. 

Parley's  Primary  History  of  North  America,  comprising  the  United' 

States,  with  notices  of  Mexico,  Canada,  &c. 
Parley's  Primary  History  of  South  America. 
Parley's  Primary  History  of  Ei\rope 
Parley's  Primary  History  of  Afi'ica,  in  preparation. 
Parleys  Primary  History  of  Asia,  including  BIBLE  HISTORY,  in  prep.  • 

These  handsome  little  books  form  a  series  of  primary  histories.  The  mcchan- , 
ical  execution  is  very  creditable  to  the  publishers.  The  following  peculiarities  < 
render  them  especially  sititiiblefor  hef;inners,  for  whose  use  they  are  intended. 

The  remarkable  abundance  and  beauty  of  the  pictorial  illustrations. 

The  use  of  maps  in  the  text,  thus  uniting  geography  with  history. 

The  striking  simplicity  and  force  of  the  style,  which  is  also  chaste  aad  finished. 

The  freshness  with  which  all  the  topics  are  invested. 

The  introduction  of  new  material,  wanting  not  only  in  ordinary  sehool  books, 
but  even  in  elaborate  historical  works. 


NEW  AND  ENLARGED  EDITION 


A   COLLECTION  OF  TUNES  AND  HYMNS 


^: 


For  the  use  of  V/crchipping  /assemblies  and; 
Sunday  Schools. 

NUMEHAL    EDITION.— Compiled    from    many    Authors,   by   SILAS   \V 
LEONARD  and  A.  D.  FILLMORE.     Revised  by  Kcv.  VVM.  GUNN,  of  Kv., 

iRev.  THOS.  HARRISON,  of  Ohio,  and  by  tho  AUTHORS. 
It  is  therefore  both  a  Hymn  Book  and  Tune  Book  in  one. 

)  Bound  in  Sheep,  or  Extra  Cloth,  7.->  cts.  I  Bound  in  Super  Gilt  Cloth  $1  2  . 

Mor^'co,  gilt.  Si  00  I  ■•        Tarfccy  Gilt  Cloth  2  ou 


l: 


SCHOOL  GRAMMARS. 

The  Series  consists  of  Two  Parts, 
I.    BUTLER'S    INTRODUCTORY    LESSONS    INI 

ENGLISH    GRAMMAR.— For    Beginners. 
n.    BUTLER'S    PRACTICAL    GRAMMAR. 


Instead  of  offerino:  to  the  pablic  their  own  commendations  of  these  books,  the  , 
publishers  liave  the  pleasure  of  ins'itiug  attention  to  tlie  following  communications : 

1.  Fi-om  Rev.  J.  M'Ci.iNxorK,  D.D.,  who  is  well  known  throughout  the  United 
Slates  as  one  of  the   most  accomplished  scholars  and  skilfal  educators.     As  a  ' 
professor  in  the  hii,'host  institutions  of  learninir,  as  tlie  author  of  a  most  successful 
series  of  classical  text  books,  and  as  editor  of  the  Q.uarterly  Review,  published  ^ 
by  the   Northern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  city  of  New  York,  bis 
reputation  is  as  wide  as  the  country. 

"  BtiTLER's  'Practical  Grammvr  of  the  EvfiLisH  Languaqe,'  is  an  exceedingly  well- 
conceivfcd  and  well-executeJ  boolc.  It  U  scieutitic,  not  only  in  its  groundwork  (which 
every  elementary  book  ought  to  be),  but  also  in  its  practical  methods  and  devices,  where 
empiricism  i.s  too  ofccii  substituted  fir  science.  As  every  lesson  can  be  put  to  use  at  once, 
the  learner  makes  real  progress  with  every  page.  I  have  seen  no  Elementary  English  i 
Grammar  that  pleases  me  better — or  so  well. 

JOUN  M'CLINTOCK. 

New  York,  Alarch  28,  1849. 


a.  From  Georgk  B.  K.merson,  of  Boston,  whose  commendation  of  any  text 
book  is  conclusive  evidence  of  its  great  merits.  He  stands  foremost  among  the 
men  to  whom  New  En^tland  looks  up,  as  tiie  highest  authority  in  all  matters 
connected  with  education. 

Dear  Sir— I  have  h.ardly  had  an  hour  siuce  1  received  your  note  accompanying  this 
Gramnmr,  which  was  not  ab.solutely  bespoken  for  some  other  purpose.  Ou  looking  over  I 
the  book  rapidly,  I  see  many  things  in  it  which  are  exoelleut.  The  definitions  are  remark- 
ably simple  imd  ciear  ;  the  rules  are  short  and  comprehensive ;  and  the  arrangement  is  so 
'  good;  and  the  exercises  so  well  selected,  that  a  tolerable  teacher  might  be  very  successful 
in  teaching  the  principles  of  English  (irammar  by  the  aid  of  it.  It  forms,  moreover,  in 
the  way  it  is  intended  to  be  used,  what  every  Griimmar  for  beginners  ought  to  f»rm — an  < 
introduction  to  the  art  and  practice  of  composition. 

The  names  of  the  tenses  are  far  more  sensible  and  pliilosophical  than  those  found  in 
most  Grammar.s,  which  indeed  are  often  qui'e  wrong  and  absurd;  and  the  principles  of  j 
Syntax  and  of  I'rosody  are  singularly  well  coudeused,  without  boi-omiug  too  abstract  and  , 
obscure.     In  a  future  edition,  1  hope  he  will  give  the  game  condensation  to  the  rules  fcr  ^ 
Punctuation.  I  am,  dear  sir,  very  truly  yours, 

Oct.  27.  1845.  GEO.  B.  EMERSON 

To  J.  G.  Palfrey,  IX.D.,  D.D.,  Secretary  of  State. 

3,  The  following  are  extracts  from  the  opinions  of  distinguished  scholars:— 
From  E 


D.    North,  Prof,  of  IVuluric 
ta  Yrile  Cot/tL'i: 
"  It  is  the  most  scholarly  and  philosophic 
Grammar  that  I  know."' 

A.  D.  Lord,  of  Ohio. 
"  I  consider  ii  one  of  the  best  works  we 
have  on  the  subject." 

Rev.  B.  P.  Aydelote,  of  Cincinnati. 
"  An  improvement,  in  every  respect,  upon 
preceding  works." 

Rich.  n.  Lee,  Prof.  Woskine^fon  Coll. 
"  I  heartily  recommend  it  as  the  best  now 
to  be  got.'" 


John  Lewis,  of  Llangollen. 
"  It  is  really  what  its  title  indicates — A 
I'ractical  Grammar." 

Jno.  B.  L.  Soiile,  Tcrre  Haute. 
"  Far  in  advance  of  any  now  in  use." 

E.  A.  Smith,  Siip't  of  Cor.imon  Schools, ' 
Statetown,  N.  Y. 
"I    prefer   it    before   Brown's   an.1   Bill-  , 
lions'." 

Moscx  Soule,  North  Bridslon. 
"  My    beau    ideal   of   an    English   Grain- 
mar." 


ore, 

JJTental  and  Vocal  PhUosopliy,  for  the  Developmeufc 
of  the  Mind  and  Body. 

COMPRliliVG 

1.  Tiro  or  Thire  Hundred  of  the  CJioirest  Anecdotes  in  our  T^ir^fjuaqe. 

2.  Three  Thoiixuud  Oratorical  and  Poetical  lieadinffs  and  liecitutions.  i 

3.  Fire  'Tlwusnud  Prorerbs,  Mu.rimfi,  ,Suijiii;/s,  Themes,  and  Laconics. 

4.  And  iSereral  Hundred  Ehjant  Enffrauingti,  to  Illustrate  the  Wor/c. 


IT  CON 

I.  All  llic  Principles  of  Elocution,  in 
rtccordance  with  Phvsiological  and  Men- 
tal Science:  II.  SIX  FULL  LENGTH 
VIEWS  of  the  Nerves  of  Organic  Life, 
of  Respiration,  of  the  Nerves  of  Sense 
and  Motion,  and  of  all  the  Muscles  and 
Bones  of  tlie  whole  Hod}',  clothed  and 
unclothed:  III.  Natural  and  Deformed 
Chests.  Positions  of  Ladies  and  Gentle- 
men, of  their  Bodies,  Hands,  Anns,  and 
Feet,  and  ONE  HUNDRED  Full 
Length  Oratorical  and  Poetical  Por- 
traits: IV.  FORTY-FOUR  MOUTHS, 
showing  every  position  to  produce  the 
FORTY-FOUR  sounds  of  our  Lan- 
guage :  V.  The  Common,  and  New 
Mode  of  Learning  the  Letters,  of  Spell- 
ing, and  of  Teaching  Children  to  Read, 
involving  the   Science    of   Phonology : 

VI.  Several  Hundred  Jaw  or  Muscle- 
Breakers,  for  Training  the  Voice,  while 

Laughter   holds   both   of    his    sides." 

VII.  FIFTY  ENGRAVINGS,  exhib- 
iting all  the  Phases  of  Passion,  with 
appropriate  examples  to  illustrate  them: 
VIII  An  immense  number  of  GLnes- 
tions  and  Subjects  suggested  for  Ly- 
ceums, Debating  Societies,  and  Social 
Parties:  IX.  The  largest  and  best  col- 
lection of  READINGS,  RECITA- 
TIONS, and  DECLAMATIONS,  in- 
cluding those  int-erspersed  with  his 
Popular  Lectures,  involving  every  va- 
riety of  Thoucrht  and  Feelin?,  and 
ranging  from  the  deepest  Tragedy  to 
the  blithest  Comedy ;  with  something 
on  every  page,  calculated  to  make  one 
serious  and  gay  :  X.  By  being  printed 
in  double  columns,  and  certain  kinds  of 
type,  it  is  designed,  on  philosophical 
principle.s,  tn  facilitate  the  arts  of  Head- 
iiiu',  Memorizing,  and  the  Preservation 
of  the  Eyesight — tiiree  important  points 
of  attainment :  XI.  It  is  expressly  pre- 
pared for  use  in  all  SCHOOLS,  ACAD- 
EMIES, and  COLLEGES.  Male  and 
Female;  and  also  with  particular  ref- 
erence to  Private  Headers  and  Learn- 
ers: XII.  In  a  word,  it  is  just  such  a 
book,  as  every  one,  having  heard  of  it, 


TAINS: 

will  Feel  and  Think  he  must  have,  and  ' 
cannot  do  without  it. 

ITS  COMPARATIVE  MERITS. 

I.  An   examination  of  its   C  ntents 
and  their  Arrangement,  will  enable  one  ' 
to  institute  a  comparison  between  thi- 
work,  and  all  others  on  the  same  subject.  ] 

II.  It  is  in  perfect  harrao'iv  wiiii 
what  is  knownof  all  that  is  NATURAL, 
HU.MAN,  and  DIVINE. 

III.  Its  foundations  are  deeply  laid  i 
in  the  Philosophy  of  Mind  and  Voice 
Spirit  and  Matter;    and  the  principles' 
are  of  a  far-reaching  and  comprehensive  ' 
nature,  tending  to  produce  a  great  rev- 
olution   in    the    Art    of   Reading    and 
Speaking  with  Science  a  d  Effect,  and 
the     development    of    the    WHOLE 
MAN,  Soul,  Mind,  and  Body. 

IV.  Its  method  is  that  of  ANALYSIS  . 
and    SYNTHESIS,    and   is    altogether  i 
Progressive  and  Practical  in  its  charac- 
teristics. 

V.  Although  but  ONE  Elocutionary 
Principle  is  presented,  speeilically,  on  ' 
any  page,  yet  each   Elementary  page  ' 
contains,  incidentally,  ALL  the  Princi- 
ples of  Elocution. 

VI.  These  Principles  have  nei'erj 
been  known  to  fail,  when  fairhfully  ap- 
plied, to  enable  one  to  Read.  Speak, 
and  Blow  on  Wind  Instruments,  for 
hours  in  succession,  without  Hoarse- 
ness, or  injujious  Exhau-stion  ;  and  they 
ten<i  to  the  Preservation  from,  and  ("ure 
of  Diseases  of  the  Thioat  and  Lungs 
Dyspepsia,  and  other  Comjilaints  inei 
dental  to  Public  Speaking,  and  a  Sed- 
entary Life. 

Vli.  It  is  BEAUTIFULLY  and 
SUBSTANTIALLY  got  up  in  the  oc 
tnvo  form,  of  between  three  and  four  i 
hundred  pases,  and  includes  a  greater 
variety  of  Prose  and  Poetry  than  an\ 
other  system  of  Elocution,  ami  conta 
DOUBLE  the  amount  of  rendim  mat 
ter  tbund  in  any  similar  worU  in  the 
United  States,  nml  vet— 'I  HIC  I'UI  K 
IS    ONLY    O.N'E    DOLL  A  11,. 


^) 


I 


f 


VALUABLE  AND  POPiJLAR  SCHOOL  BOOKS, 

rUBl.lallED    BY 

MOBTOII    &   ©EliWOILD, 

LOUISVILLE,     KY. 

BY  S.  G.  GOODRICH, 

AUTHOR    OF   "  parley's   TALES,"    PICTORIAL    HISTOPIES,    ETC,    ETC. 

New  Editions,  revised  and  much  enlarged,  with  many  additional  CuU,  all 
newly  designed  and  engraved  by  the  best  Artists,  well  printed  on  handsome 
paper, — the  most  atirarlive  series  of  School  Readers  in  market. 


Goodrich's     First     School 

Reader,  72  pp.,  It^mo  .half  hound 
Goodrich's      Second     School 

Reader,  144  pp.,  It'mo.,  haU'hound. 
Goodrich's       Third       School 

Reader,  218  pp.,  ISmo.,  half  roan. 
Goodrich's     Fourth     School 

Reader,  240  pp..  12itio.,  half  roan. 
Goodrich's     Fifth     School 

Reader,  384  pp.,  12uio.,  full  sheep. 


The  Common  School  Primer) 

Ofi  pp..  16  mo.,  half  cloth. 
The  New  Primer,  36  pp.,  18mo. 

These  Readers  contain  a  full  sys- 
tem of  Lessons  on  Enunciation,  Arti- 
culation, and  Rhetorical  Practice. 

Bronson's  Klocution,  or,  Vocal 
Philosophy,  340  pp.,  8vo.,  embossed 
cloth. 


COMPLETE  SYSTEM  OP  HISTORIES. 

BY    S.    S.    GOODRICH,  AUXIIOR    OF    "PARLEY'S   TALES,"  ETC.,  ETC. 

In  two  Parts.  All  most  elegantly  illui^trated  by  Engravings,  Plans,  and 
Stylographic  Maps,  closely  printed  oii  superfine  heavy  paper,  neatly  bound 
in  half  roan,  cloth  sides. 


PRIMARY    SERIES. 
Five   Vols.,  each  210  op-    li<mo. 

P      .ey's  Primary  History  of 

North     America,     comprising 

tilt-  Uuued  ^tiiie.s,  with  Notices  of 

l\U-xico,  Cmiiula.  &c. 
Parley's  Primary  History  of 

South  America, 
Parley's  Primary  History  of 

Europe, 
Parley's  Primary  History  of 

Africa,  in  prt'imraiioii. 
Parley's  Pi-lmary  History  of 

Asia,     iiioludiug     BIBLE     HIS- 

TOKV,  .n  prep 


ADVANCED    SERIES. 

1  Two    Vols.,  of  upwards   of  500  pp. 
\  12mo.  each. 

{  Goodrich's  Ancient  History. 

If  Goodrich's   Modern   History, 


Attention  is  invited  to  the  ahovs 
Histories.  The  two  series  los^Rther 
will  supply  the  wants  of  all  classes 
in  Common  and  High  Schools.  No 
expense  has  been  spared  to  make 
them  superior  to  preceding  works 
The  remaining  Volumes  will  appear 
without  dclav. 


GRAMMATICAL   SERIES. 

13V    NOBI.E    BUTI.ER,   A    .M. 


BMller's        liitrodiK-t  loll 
Kiigllsll     Gi'aiiiiii:)!-,    Sif> 

Ismo.,  half  lioiiiiil 


to    1    Butler's  Practical  GrHminar 
IM' .    \        of    lite     ICiiglish     I<nuguagc, 

\        2111  |'|>  ,  l2ino.,  half  Loinid 


Stronaily  rfciiiMiin-iiiti-il  li)  tlie  Imsi  T>-;u-litr.s,  as  possessing  iiuim-riHis  pecu 
liar  advaiuages,  m  pomi  of  ail.iptalioii,  practical  character,  progressiveness, 
treaimeni  of  Adjectives.   Pronouns,  (and  especially  the  "Compound  Relative 

t    Pronoun"),    Tcii:<es,    .Moods.    Auxiliaries,    Adverbs,    Prepositions,    Analysis, 
Syntax,  Verbs  (iiicluduig  some  constructions  heretofore  entirely  overlooked) 
Prosotly    fuiiciualioii,  and 
■    nbv  The  t.esi  .<5.-lcci.(.n  of  PARSl.VO   KXP-RCISES,  drawn  from 

slaiidurd  Auiliors,  and  sysi.-matically  arranged 


t 


